Planning and preparation of the 2017 review cycle 14th Meeting of GHG Inventory Lead Reviewers Bonn, Germany, 8–9 March 2017 Vitor Góis - UNFCCC Secretariat

Summary Lessons learnt from the 2016 GHG review cycle Challenges and opportunities for the next review cycle Review plan for 2017 Conclusions and discussions

The 2016 GHG review cycle DR2 CR2 CR3 CR4 ICR2 CR5 CR6 ICR3 CR7 ICR4 29 Aug to 3 Sep 5 Sep 10 Sep 12 Sep 17 Sep 19 Sep 24 Sep 26 Sep 1 Oct 3 Oct 8 Oct 10 Oct 15 Oct CR1 Norway, Sweden, Latvia CR2 Ireland, Greece, Czech Rep CR3 Finland, Ukraine, Kazakhstan CR4 AUS, Slovakia, Lithuania ICR2 Switzerland CR5 Belgium, Poland, Romania, CR6 Spain, Portugal, UK ICR3 Cyprus CR7 Netherlands, USA, Estonia CR8 Iceland, EU, Croatia ICR4 Hungary ICR5 France ICR6 Germany CR9 NZL, Liechtenstein, Slovenia, Monaco CR10 Austria, Lux, Italy ICR7 Denmark ICR1 Belarus ICR9 Malta ICR10 Bulgaria DR1 Canada, Russian Federation DR2 Japan, Turkey 17 Oct to 22 Oct

The 2016 GHG review cycle – key observations Reviews and reports The expectation was that the 2016 review cycle would be very challenging The resources used showed that indeed it was. However, overall statistics and the quality of reports demonstrate that the outcome was impacted, but still under control Resources The number of experts used in reviews was about 217/247, which represents a significant increase from previous years (170-190 experts per year) 10 CRs were organized instead of usual 8 To limit the number of Parties per expert and because DRs were not possible for Parties subject to initial review In addition to additional experts, additional review officers and team assistants had to be considered to support the review cycle, including staff from other units in MDA and consultants Outcome of reviews – review reports Review reports are generally of good quality, reflecting the reduced number of reports per ERT/expert, the efforts in training, templates that were key to streamline the preparation of reports, and improved QA plans by the secretariat The templates and the review tools had a positive impact on the efficiency of reviews The QC/QA appears to be more efficient

The 2016 review cycle – desk reviews Desk reviews in 2016 2 Desk reviews covering four Parties: Japan, Russian Federation, Canada and Turkey 26 experts involved 7 experts from funded Parties have participated Outcome of reviews The reports are generally of good quality, based on the number and scope of QA comments Finding experts for DR and ensuring geographical balance is a challenge Desk reviews may not require so much time as other reviews: The scope of desks reviews (priorities), as contained in decision 13/CP.20, annex, para. 76, is narrow as compared to centralized and in country reviews, However, the review reports of the DRs undertaken during the 2015 and 2016 review cycles were comparable to centralized reviews

Feedback on the 2015/2016 review cycle of GHG inventories (January) Questionnaire to Parties What could be done differently to improve the efficiency of the review process? Views on the new annual review report templates? Issues on inconsistent treatment of issues in the 2016 review cycle? Sufficiently informed of the progress of your annual review report? Questionnaire to ERTs Views on the size and composition of your ERT? Timely invitation? Was your team sufficiently prepared for the review week? Better than before? View on the pre-filled ARR template? What is your opinion regarding the LULUCF advisory group, or other sectoral advisory groups

(full list of comments available on the LR web page – please check!) Feedback on the 2015/2016 review cycle of GHG inventories (some results) What could be done differently? Reviewers to prepare at home before the review week Improved discussions amongst the team Improve resources to follow up on the review week (ROs) Desk reviews: limit the scope Avoid less relevant issues Avoid duplication of work More direct interaction with Parties Improving review tools and iVTR, liberating time for substance (most comments) Number of experts per Party Most comments agree with the workload or propose 2 experts for 4 Parties (excluding LULUCF) But the secretariat to be mindful and flexible (different Parties, different needs) (full list of comments available on the LR web page – please check!)

Challenges for 2017 Presentation title Budget The 2016 review cycle was challenging and additional resources were needed to ensure that results (3 reports for most Parties) were achieved. These challenges were expected 5. Takes note of the estimated budgetary implications of the activities to be undertaken by the secretariat pursuant to the provisions contained in paragraphs 1 and 2 above; (decision 10/CMP.11, para. 5) 3. Requests the secretariat to coordinate the technical review of greenhouse gas inventories from Parties included in Annex I to the Convention in accordance with the provisions of the guidelines contained in the annex, subject to the availability of financial resources; (decision 13/CP.20, para. 3) (..) and recognizes that the secretariat may implement such reviews according to decision 13/CP.20 in 2016–2017, taking into account the programme budget and supplementary resources provided for under this decision (Dec. 21/CP.21 Programme budget for the biennium 2016–2017, footnote 3) In addition, the budget of the Secretariat and MDA was impacted (please refer to the Budget presentation) A project for supplementary funding to support Annex I GHG reviews is available. Contributions were asked for 2016-2017, but no contributions at all were received yet for this purpose

Challenges for 2017 Training for KP-LULUCF Presentation title Training for KP-LULUCF Not all LULUCF experts and LRs took the courses and exams on KP-LULUCF so far The 2016 review cycle took place under exceptional circumstances and some experts may not had the time to follow the new training at the same time while conducting reviews (please refer to the Training presentation) Competition for reviewers with other UNFCCC review processes To perform other types of reviews BUR for developing countries technical assessments of REDD+ forest reference levels NC/BRs IPCC meetings CRF Reporter Issues related to CRF reporter were solved and submissions are returning as business as usual (please refer to the presentation on the CRF Reporter - tomorrow)

Overview of the plan for 2017 GHG reviews

Principles and assumptions Presentation title In-country reviews 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” KP Parties without QERLCs for CP1 have to be subject to an ICR (decision 4/CMP.11) Initial review for some Parties still remaining: Belarus, Kazakhstan, Monaco (CP1) Recommendation for an in-country review in 2016 ARR Some cases identified But some cases identified in ICRs; therefore, probably scheduled for 2018 Desk reviews decision 13/CP.20 (annex, para. 63) is more flexible “The GHG inventory of each Annex I Party shall be subject to a desk review at most once every three years.” Options to address potential problems with the budget (please refer to the budget presentation)

Reviews in recent years

Planning basics and options Presentation title Review period Autumn (September – October) Reason: the timing for identification of potential problems (25 weeks from the submission due date) In-country reviews Proposal based on ‘at leas 5 year’ criteria: 2017: Czech Rep., Iceland, Kazakhstan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Romania, Russian Federation, Spain and Ukraine Recommended by the ERT: likely 3 additional Parties (2017 or 2018) Options Option 1 (Business as usual: 44 Parties – supplementary fund covering needed) Option 2 (reduced number of reviews (22) – if only core funding available) Option 3 (all desk reviews – if additional general cash-flow problem at UNFCCC)

Business as usual: 44 Parties per year Presentation title Option 1 (Business as usual – supplementary fund covering) Assumptions ICRs due in accordance to ‘at least 5 year’ rule are included in the respective year. Additional ICRs are considered in 2017 ICR solely from recommendations in ARR 2016 reports are partly postponed to 2018, to allow some time for Parties to prepare 2 Parties pending ICR for the purpose of calculation of the initial assigned amount for CP2: Belarus and Kazakhstan DRs were selected for those Parties that were subject to an ICR in 2015 or 2016, but not subject to a DR recently (in order to preserve the 3 years rule). Exception Malta (DR in 2013, but no reviews in 2014 and 2015) Plan ICR: 11-12 Parties in the 2017 25-26 Parties reviewed CR in Bonn; 3 – 4 Parties per centralized review Parties reviewed DR: 7 Parties in 2017; 2 Parties per DR

Option 1: 44 reviews - 2017 CR2 ICR1 ICR2 CR3 CR4 ICR3 CR5 CR6 ICR4 Wk 1 Wk 2 Wk 3 Wk 4 Wk 5 Wk 6 Wk 7 CR1 P1, P2, P3 CR2 P4, P5, P6 ICR1 Czech R. ICR2 Iceland CR3 P7, P8, P9 CR4 P10, P11, P12 ICR3 Kazakhstan CR5 P13, P14, P15 CR6 P16, P17, P18 ICR4 Lux. ICR5 The Netherland CR7 P19, P20, P21, P22 CR8 P23, P24, P25 ICR6 Ukraine DR1 Bulgaria, Germany DR2 Switzerland, France ICR7 Belarus ICR8 Spain DR3 Hungary, Denmark DR4 Australia ICR9 Party 26 ICR10 Romania ICR11 Russian F. ICR12 N. Zealand Wk 8

Reduced number of reviews: 22 Parties per year Presentation title Option 2 (supplementary funding not available) Assumptions No changes regarding in-country reviews: ICRs due in accordance to ‘at least 5 year’ rule are included in the respective year. Additional ICRs are considered in 2017 or 2018; 2 Parties pending ICR for the purpose of calculation of the initial assigned amount for CP2: Belarus and Kazakhstan; Monaco pending initial review in 2017 (CR) CRs for 22 Parties only, giving priority in scheduling in 2017 for those Parties which ICR happened longer time ago DRs not considered Plan ICR: 12 Parties per year in the 2017 10 Parties reviewed CR in Bonn; 3 centralized review

Option 2: 22 reviews – 2017 2017 ICR1 ICR2 CR2 ICR3 CR3 ICR4 ICR5 ICR6 Czech R. Wk 1 Wk 2 Wk 3 Wk 4 Wk 5 Wk 6 Wk 7 CR1 P1, P2, P3 ICR2 Iceland CR2 P4, P5, P6 ICR3 Kazakhstan CR3 P7, P8, P9, P10 ICR4 Lux. ICR5 The Netherland ICR6 Ukraine ICR7 Belarus ICR8 Spain ICR9 Party 11 ICR10 Romania ICR11 Russian F. ICR12 N. Zealand Wk 8

Option 3: 44 desk reviews - 2017 DR1 P1, P2 DR2 P3, P4 DR3 P5, P6 Wk 1 Wk 2 Wk 3 Wk 4 Wk 5 Wk 6 Wk 7 DR1 P1, P2 DR2 P3, P4 DR3 P5, P6 DR4 P7, P8 DR5 P9, P10 DR6 P11, P12 DR7 P13, P14 DR8 P15, P16 DR9 P17, P18 DR10 P19, P20 DR11 P21, P22 DR12 P23, P24 DR13 P25, P26 DR14 P27, P28 DR15 P29, P30 DR16 P31, P32 DR17 P33, P34 DR18 P35, P36 DR19 P37, P38 DR20 P39, P40 DR21 P41, P42 DR22 P43, P44 Wk 8

Conclusions

Possible elements for draft conclusions Recognize the challenges for the organization of reviews 2017, in particular the extra effort and budget constraints The conduct of a full review for all Parties depends on the availability of supplementary resources Note/welcome the conditional plan of the secretariat, containing options The secretariat informs Annex I Parties no later than xx XXX 2017 on the plans for the 2017 and 2018 review cycles The secretariat to streamline the organization of DRs: a manageable effort; while ensuring compliance with the UNFCCC Annex I inventory review guidelines The secretariat to adapt the review procedures and materials (e.g. the review report template) in accordance Invite Parties in a position to do so to provide support to the supplementary funding for projects related to Annex I GHG inventories and their review by xx April 2017 Nominating Parties to provide support to experts participating in desk reviews

Possible elements for draft conclusions How to implement the option with reduced number of Party reviewed without major impacts on the quality of reviews and the functionality of the National Inventory Arrangements? What changes in the organization of desk reviews could be implemented? Which other improvements in organization should be considered? How to ensure the necessary supplementary funding? Any additional suggestions?

Thank you

Guidance framework (overview) Presentation title 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

New timing rules: comparison to old guidelines and KP Example Review week 1-Sep Publication KP – 1 Feb (14 April) Conv. – 26 Jan