Analysis of Latest GHG Data and Inventory in TRRs: Insights from UNFCCC Review Meetings

Analysis of the use in the TRRs the latest available GHG data and GHG inventory data reported by Parties 5th Meeting of Lead Reviewers Davor Vesligaj, Mitigation Data Analysis programme, UNFCCC secretariat Bonn, 28 February 2018

Outline of the presentation 1. Introduction 2. ERTs approach during BR1 and BR2 reviews 3. Sources of the latest available GHG information for BR3s review 4. Conclusions and recommendation for consideration by LRs 5. Q/A

Introduction Request from the LRs to the secretariat In the conclusions of 4th meeting of the LRs, the secretariat was requested to further analyse the issue of the use in the TRRs of the latest available GHG inventory submissions and GHG inventory data reported by Parties in their BRs and BR CTF tables and to present the results of that analysis as input to the discussions at the next LRs meeting in the context of the RPG update.

ERTs approach during BR1 and BR2 reviews BR1s TRR.1s 43 Parties in total under review; 41 Parties were under review during 2014, 1 in 2015 and 1 in 2016; 15 Parties were reviewed in February-April 2014 ; ERTs used the most recent 2013 GHG submissions that at the time of the review were the latest available; 10 Parties were reviewed in May 2014 (CR); for 9 Parties ERTs used information from 2013 GHG submissions and this was not the latest submission at the time of the review; 16 Parties were reviewed after May 2014, for 15 Parties ERTs used the latest information from 2014 GHG submissions that at the time of the review were the latest available; One Party was reviewed in 2015 and the 2014 GHG submission was used; One Party was reviewed in 2016 and the 2016 GHG submission was used. Out of 43 Parties, ERTs used the latest available GHG information for 32 Parties i.e. 75%

ERTs approach during BR1 and BR2 reviews BR2s TRR.2s 43 Parties were under review during 2016; 24 Parties were reviewed in early March 2016 a) ERTs used the most recent 2015 GHG submissions (updates or resubmissions) for 22 Parties that at the time of the review were the latest available GHG submissions; b) for 2 Parties ERTs used GHG submission as reported in BR2 CTF. 19 Parties were reviewed in May-June 2016 a) ERTs used the 2016 GHG submissions for 14 Parties which at the time of the review were the latest available submissions; b) for 2 Parties ERTs used the most recent 2015 GHG submissions; c) For 2 Parties ERTs used 2014 GHG submissions (2014 and 2015 were not available); d) for 1 Party ERTs used 2015 GHG submission as reported in BR2 CTF. Out of 43 Parties, ERTs used the latest available GHG information for 36 Parties i.e. 84%

Sources of latest available information on GHG emissions and removals There are three sources of the latest available information on GHG emissions and removals in the case of BR3 reviews: a) Official resubmission in May 2017 (6 weeks after 15 April) relevant for BR3 reviews organized for March-early April in 2018; time series covered 1990 2015; b) Resubmission as a result of GHG inventory reviews in 2017 (usually in September-November 2017) relevant for BR3 reviews organized for March-early April in 2018; time series covered 1990 2015; includes results of inventory reviews (mostly recalculations); c) New submission in April 2018 relevant for BR3 reviews organized late April-May and onwards in 2018; time series covered 1990 2016; includes improvements resulting from the previous inventory review.

Why using the latest available GHG inventory could be considered as a good review practice There is more clarity on the understanding of progress towards target. Due to stretched timeframe of BR preparation-reporting-review-multilateral assessment cycle (2-years), the use of the latest available information on GHG emissions and removals provides better clarity on the progress towards target, particularly now when reporting/reviewing years and target year are converging (e.g. BR4 review in 2021/2022). The use of the reviewed vs. the latest available GHG inventory submission adds marginal benefit. Taking into account the GHG inventory report-review-improve cycle, having used reviewed compared to not reviewed but improved and updated GHG inventory adds marginal benefit and robustness of technical assessment. Using the latest available GHG inventory put minimal additional workload on ERTs during review. Relevant table in the TRR on GHG emissions and removals by sector and by gas containing the latest available data could be prepared by the secretariat, including quantification of trends and shares of sectors and gases to total GHG emissions. The ERT should check the accuracy of these data and prepare technical assessment as usual. So, in our view, additional workload could be considered as minimal.

Conclusions and recommendations for consideration by LRs The LRs recommends that the ERT should factually reflect historical GHG emission data in the TRR using the latest available GHG inventory submission provided by the Party to the ERT during the review or submitted as an official GHG inventory submission, at the time of the review week. The description of the national inventory arrangements should be reviewed as reported in the BR/NC submission, if not specified otherwise by the Party under review.

Q/A