1 / 33

Reporting, Review and Compliance under the Kyoto Protocol: the Case of Initial Report

Reporting, Review and Compliance under the Kyoto Protocol: the Case of Initial Report. VERTIC/REC Workshop 9-10 October 2006 Katia Simeonova Manager Reporting, Data and Analysis Programme. Compliance. Decision 27/CMP.1. Mechanisms and domestic measures.

kerri
Télécharger la présentation

Reporting, Review and Compliance under the Kyoto Protocol: the Case of Initial Report

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Reporting, Review and Compliance under the Kyoto Protocol: the Case of Initial Report VERTIC/REC Workshop 9-10 October 2006 Katia Simeonova Manager Reporting, Data and Analysis Programme

  2. Compliance Decision 27/CMP.1 Mechanisms and domestic measures Accounting, Reporting and Review Decisions 2//CMP.1, 3/CMP.1, 5/CMP.1, 9/CMP.1, and 11/CMP.1 Decisions 13/CMP.1, 15/CMP.1,16/CMP.1, 20/CMP.1 and 22/CMP.1 Kyoto Implementation Implementation Eligibility criteria

  3. Preparation of the Initial Report

  4. Initial Report • Modalities for accounting for assigned amount, under Article 7.4 (Decision 13/CMP.1): • Report due prior to 1 January 2007, or one year after the entry into force of the Kyoto Protocol for a Party • “Each Party shall facilitate the calculation of its assigned amount pursuant to Article 3, paragraphs 7 & 8, for the commitment period and demonstrate its capacity to account for its emissions and assigned amount. To this end, each Party shall submit a report in two parts.”

  5. Elements of Initial Report Part One of report: • Complete national inventory • Base year for F-gases • Burden-sharing agreement under Article 4 • Calculation of its assigned amount Part two: • Calculation of commitment period reserve • Identification of values for activities under Article 3.3 and 3.4 (LULUCF definitions) • Election of activities under 3.4 and accounting period for each • Description of National System • Description of Registry

  6. National system • Required for estimation of GHG emissions and removals • To be established by 1 January 2007 • Provide information on institutional, legal and procedural arrangements necessary to produce reliable inventory Problems with national system could prevent Party from participating in Kyoto mechanisms

  7. National system (continued) • Requirements are functional, including: • Single national entity with inventory responsibility • Roles and responsibilities of various agencies participating in inventory planning and preparation • Inventory planning (define responsibilities, choice of methods, data and emission factors) • Inventory preparation (use of IPCC good practice guidance, data collection, inventory uncertainty) • Key source analysis and recalculation of previously submitted inventories • Quality assurance and quality control procedures • Reporting and archive inventory information

  8. National greenhouse gas inventory • All gases and sources (completeness) • Estimates of Article 3.3/4 LULUCF emissions/removals not included until commitment period • Full geographic coverage • Base year inventory, complete and consistent time-series • All years from base year up to most recent available • Use of methods consistent with IPCC methodologiesand IPCC Good Practice Guidance • Submitted in standardized electronic reporting tables (common reporting format) • National inventory report (description of methods used, data sources, etc)

  9. Land use, land-use change and forestry • Definitions for LULUCF parameters (e.g. minimum width of forest area) • Example of Hungary: minimum land area (0.5 ha), minimum width of forest area (10m), minimum tree crown cover (30%) and height (5m) • Elections of activities under Article 3.4 • Example of Hungary: elects forest management (does not elect crop land management, grazing land management and revegetation)

  10. Land use, land-use change and forestry(continued) • Accounting period (annual or over commitment period) for each Article 3.3 activity and each elected 3.4 activity • Example of Hungary: intends to account for Article 3.3. And 3.4 annually Party’s choices on LULUCF will be recorded in Compilation & Accounting database and become mandatory for commitment period

  11. National registries • Electronic databases established by Annex B Parties • Track holdings of units in accounts for Parties and entities • Track transactions of units in and between accounts • Issuance and conversion of units • Acquisition of units from other registries • Cancellation,replacement, retirement and carry-over • Process transactions in accordance with thespecifications of the data exchange standards • Transactions monitored by the international transaction log

  12. National registries (continued) • Number of reporting requirements, e.g. • Responsibilities, database structure, security measures, procedures to minimize discrepancies • Example of Hungary: rather complete description • Results from test procedures and assessment reports from RSAF • Show results of independent testing • Show results of registry initializing and exchanges with the ITL, according to data exchange standards Problems with national registry could prevent Party from participating in Kyoto mechanisms

  13. Assigned amount calculation • Assigned amount calculation takes into account: • Base year emissions according to Annex A to the Kyoto Protocol (1990 or other year approved by the COP, F-gases (1990 or 1995), and • Emissions from deforestation, if applicable, and • Annex B target or Article 4 arrangements, if applicable, • Example of Hungary: • AA = {BY emissions (average of 1985-87) excl. LULUCF and Fgases base year + Fgases1995} * Annex B target*5years • BY emissions={(123 178 046-33 169-349 502)+238 715}= = 123 034 090 Mg CO2eq • No emissions from deforestation • AA = 123 034 090*0.94*5 = 578 260 222 Mg CO2eq

  14. Assigned amount calculation: LULUCF inclusion • Assigned amount calculation: LULUCF inclusion guided by decision 13/CMP.1 • Determine whether LULUCF sector as a whole is a net source of emissions for 1990 (summary table 2 of the CRF, under category 5 (LULUCF), then • Determine whether Party has net emissions from deforestation (info item in Table 5 of the CRF, under “Forest Land converted to Other Land-Use Categories”

  15. Commitment period reserve calculation • Commitment period reserve (CPR) equals to • 90% of the Party assigned amount, or • 100% of five times its most recently reviewed inventory, whichever is lower • The second condition will mostly apply to EIT Parties • Example of Hungary • 90% of the AA= 0.9*578 260 222 = = 520 434 200 Mg CO2eq • On most recent inventory (2004) = 83952 541 * 5 = = 419 762 705 Mg CO2eq. • CPR = 419 762 705 Mg CO2eq

  16. Review of the Initial Report

  17. Initial Review under Article 8 Decision 22/CMP.7: “For each Party included in Annex I the review prior to the first commitment period shall be initiated upon receipt of [the initial] report. The review … shall be completed within 12 months of the initiation of the review and a report shall be forwarded expeditiously to the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol and the Compliance Committee.

  18. Initial Review and Annual 2006 Review Decision 26/CMP.1: “The secretariat to organize, in accordance with corresponding guidelines, the initial review under Article 8 of the Kyoto Protocol, in conjunction with the review of greenhouse gas inventories submitted in 2006, while exercising certain degree of flexibility in applying the agreed timelines, provided that each initial review is completed no later than one year of the date of submission of the initial report…”.

  19. Initial Review Tasks • Assess functionality of national system (Article 7 and Article 5.1 requirements) • Review inventory, including LULUCF, focus on base year • If appropriate, recommend adjustments to base year • Assess registry conformity with Article 7.4 requirements • Review calculation of assigned amount, based on • Reviewed inventory • Articles 3.7 and 3.8 of Protocol, • Annex B of Protocol, and • Article 4 and base year different from 1990, if appropriate • Review calculation of commitment period reserve All reviews conducted in-country and to be completed within one year!

  20. Review – Compliance Linkage • Review of initial report leads to • Fixing of assigned amount for the 1st commitment period • Establishment of eligibility to participate in the mechanisms • Recording accounting rules and parameters for LULUCF • All review reports forwarded to Compliance Committee • Compliance Committee to consider questions of implementation raised in review reports, if applicable, and take relevant decisions (Enforcement branch) • Final emissions (reported + adjustments) and assigned amount recorded in Compilation & Accounting Database • Some parameters from the Compilation & Accounting Database will be released to ITL, e.g eligibility status • These data to be used for compliance assessment at end of commitment period

  21. Review – Eligibility Linkage • Review of initial report leads to establish eligibility to participate in the mechanisms • Automatic eligibility after 16 months of the initial report (unless the Enforcement branch determines that some requirements are not met) • Need to complete review and compliance cycle on time • Otherwise eligibility status will be established even if the review-compliance cycle is not completed • Party must continue to meet requirements to maintain eligibility: • Annual inventory and assigned amount reporting • Inventory passed quality tests in the annual review • Enforcement branch can suspend eligibility

  22. Implications for the Review Process Compared to Annual Inventory Review • Initial Reviews need to cover more elements than inventory reviews (national systems, registries, assigned amount accounting) • Additional knowledge and expertise needed for ERTs • Role of the Kyoto Protocol training courses • Review reports must clearly indicate potential problems, how these problems were addressed during the review and any questions of implementation, if applicable • Reviews can be initiated at any time, not all on same cycle as annual review • Huge task with very high resource requirements • Secretariat is prepared to organize teams throughout the year and managed to automate many review tools/products • Possible to compress some steps in inventory review

  23. Scope of the Review: National System • Review of National System • Many elements already covered as part of review in-country review, i.e. institutional arrangements, cross-cutting good practice guidance • Requirements are essentially functional – flexibility for national circumstances • A good inventory is also an indication of a good national system • National system must cover Article 3.3 and 3.4 activities, even though Parties will not yet be reporting related supplementary information

  24. Scope of the Review: Inventory • Complete inventory review • Focus on the base year for the initial review • Only one opportunity for Party to get the base year inventory right – future recalculations will not result in changes to Party’s assigned amount • Any adjustments applied will be used in the AA calculation • Review of LULUCF for possible application of the final clause in Article 3.7 (Parties for whom LULUCF constituted net source in 1990 shall include deforestation emissions only in the assigned amount calculation, decision 13/CMP.1) • Consistent base year (1990 or 1995) for all F-gases • Focus on the last year for the 2006 annual review Base year inventory will be the most important and difficult part of the review

  25. Scope of the Review: National Registry • Review of National Registries (22/CMP.1, 13/CMP.1 and 16/COP.10) • A detailed initial test and review to take place under the Registry System Administrators Forum • Covers technical standards for data exchange • Ensures that the registry conforms with these standards • Outcome: Independent Assessment Report (IAR), which may not be available to ERTs before and during in-country visit • Forward the IAR to ERTs during the review process • ERTs will • Check the institutional arrangements, staff allocation, roles and responsibilities • Review the IAR and prepare the final assessment of registry Initial review report of ERTs to make the final conclusion on the conformity of registries with technical standards and guidelines and to provide information to COP/MOP and CC

  26. Scope of the Review: Assigned Amount • Review of the assigned amount accounting • Calculation of assigned amount under Articles 3.7 and 3.8 is simple arithmetic: 5 x base year emissions x Annex B or Article 4 target • Expect that most difficulties will be with respect to the underlying inventory (and adjustments) • Base year for F-gases • Article 4 arrangements • Base year for EIT Parties • LULUCF inclusion in base year calculations (only for Parties for whom LULUCF constituted net source in 1990 and include only emissions from deforestation 13/CMP.1))

  27. Scope of the Review: Commitment Period Reserve (CPR) • Review of the CPR calculation in accordance to decision 11/CMP.1 • A request for each Annex I Party to maintain in its National Registry a CPR, which should not drop below: • 90% of the Party assigned amount according Article 3.7 and 8, or • 100% of five times its most recently reviewed inventory • The second condition will mostly apply to the EIT Parties • The outcome of the review (e.g. AA, LULUCF parameters, CPR) after the Compliance Committee considers any potential problem of implementation will be recorded in the Compilation and Accounting Database • At that time the most recently reviewed inventory for most Parties will be 2006 inventory submission

  28. Approach for Initial Review • Submission by Parties • Four initial reports already submitted: Japan, Hungary, New Zealand and Slovak Republik • Two more are coming soon: Norway and Switzerland • Assumption: 80% of all Kyoto Parties to submit their reports on time • 31 reviews to be conducted mostly in the first half of 2007 to meet the one year dead-line • Initial and 2006 annual review have already been initiated, e.g. status reports and no separate initial check stage is envisaged • Review materials to be provided to ERT around 7 weeks before the review • ERT to identify any early questions, and send these to Party in advance of review (e.g. around one week before the review) and the secretariat to send S&A Part I&II

  29. Approach for Initial Review (continue) • In-Country visit to occur within 3-7 months of submission • Identification of problems, including possible adjustments during in-country visit • Party comments/revisions provided within 6 weeks • ERT calculates and recommends adjustments, prepares and sends the draft report to Party within 8 weeks • Party provides comments on the draft report and accepts or rejects adjustments within 4 weeks • ERT prepares final report within 4 weeks • Reports published and forwarded to Compliance Committee (1 week ?) • Altogether: 30 weeks review, including 7 weeks preparation, 1 week in-country visit and 22 weeks for preparing and publishing the report

  30. Reporting, Review and Compliance: Case of Adjustments during the Initial Review and Beyond

  31. Problem(s) corrected? Adjustments accepted? No No Yes Yes Advice Calculate new AA (fixed for CP) Inventory problem(s)? Calculate adjustments No Report Yes No Expedited procedures Question(s) of implementation? Is Party eligible? Yes No Mechanisms eligibility Record parameters in CAD and release to ITL Initial reports, review and eligibilityERT, CC and CAD/ITL links in the case of adjustments Base year inventory 12 months 16 weeks

  32. Reporting and review: timing of reports and eligibility establishing 3.1 ComplianceAssessment 4th Nat Communication 5th National Communication? Voluntary Annual Reporting under 7.1 ‘True-up period’ Report 2008 2009 2011 2014 2006 2007 2010 2012 2013 2015 Reports to establish Assigned Amount Mandatory Annual Reporting under 7.1 Article 8 Review Process Compliance Committee

  33. Mechanisms acquisitions LULUCF activities < = > Final emissions Compliance with Annex B targets Projected emissions Annex B assigned amount Emissions side Assigned amount side

More Related