2013 Revised Supplementary Methods and Good
Practice Guidance Arising from the Kyoto
ProtocolReports of Review Editors
Compilation

Note by Technical Support Unit for the IPCC Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories (28 February 2014):
As defined in the Procedures for the Preparation, Review, Acceptance, Adoption, Approvaland Publication of IPCC Reports, the role of the Review Editors in production of an IPCC
Report is, among others, to ensure that all substantive expert and government review
comments are afforded appropriate consideration, advise lead authors on how to handle
contentious/controversial issues and ensure genuine controversies are reflected adequately
in the text of the Report.
This document is a compilation of reports submitted by the Review Editors of the 2013
Revised Supplementary Methods and Good Practice Guidance Arising from the Kyoto
Protocol (KP Supplement) in accordance with the IPCC Procedures. The signatures ofReview Editors have been removed in this document for data protection reasons.
The Review Editors’ reports are part of the quality control of the review process of the IPCC
Report. They are not intended to be additional reviews of the content of the drafts of the KPSupplement.

Compilation of Reports of Review Editors for the KP Supplement

28 February 2014

[signature removed][signature removed]Report by Review Editors of Cluster 1 1 of the KP Supplement to theIPCC
We acted as Review Editors for Cluster 1 of the 2013 Revised Supplementary Methods and Good
Practice Guidance Arising from the Kyoto Protocol (KP Supplement). These sections received 1372
comments from expert reviewers and 325 comments from governments over the two rounds ofreview as mandated by the IPCC principles and procedures.
We assisted in the process of handling of comments by the authors of Cluster 1 in order to ensurethat all substantive expert and government review comments are afforded appropriate
consideration as well as to advise Lead Authors of Cluster 1 on handling contentious/controversial
issues. We are satisfied that the Lead Authors of Cluster 1 have given appropriate consideration to
all the comments received in the review process to produce a balanced text that reflects the rangeof views on the topics covered.
We understand that a table containing all the comments received and responses by the authors will
be made available on the IPCC website by the final publication of the Report.
The following are some of the important features of the review comments on Cluster 1:a) A number of comments sought changes to specific points of guidance, where these were inclear contradiction to actual decision text, or where decision text required carefulinterpretation.
b) Many comments requested refinements and clarification to the guidance on classifying land
under KP activities.
c) A number of comments sought better explanation and improved guidance on interpretation
and application of forest definitions as part of classifying land.
d) It was requested that the KP activity of Wetland Drainage and Rewetting (WDR) should becovered better in the guidance.
e)

Many comments sought clarifications about how to represent transitions in land previously
not covered by KP activities subsequently entering KP activities, and land making transitions
between KP activities.

f)

Several comments request better distinction between QA/QC and Verification processes.

The Lead Authors addressed the above mentioned appropriately in the text of the Final Draft ofCluster 1 of the KP Supplement. This was achieved through constructive discussions amongst theCluster 1 Lead Authors and several cross-Cluster meetings.

1Cluster 1 includes Chapter 1, Sections 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 (except 2.3.9), 2.4 and Annex 2A.1.

We were particularly impressed by the open and dynamic discussions amongst the Lead Authors,with all members of the Cluster 1 team making substantive contributions during working meetings.
In addition, all of the Lead Authors, without exception, contributed conscientiously to thesubsequent preparation of the Final Draft.
We must congratulate the Cluster 1 Coordinating Lead Authors, Werner Kurz and Chengyi Zhang, inleading the discussions and contributing significantly to the responses to comments and redrafting.
In particular, Werner is to be applauded for his chairing of several very constructive and successful
cross-Cluster meetings.
Finally, we should note the excellent work of the TSU, in particular Maya Fukuda, in facilitating thedeliberations of Cluster 1, ensuring that progress on responding to comments was properly tracked
and comments sheets were kept up to date.

[signature removed][signature removed]

Robert Matthews

Emmanuel Mpeta

11 October 2013

Report by Review Editors of Section 2.3.9 of the KP Supplement to theIPCC
We acted as Review Editors for Section 2.3.9 of the 2013 Revised Supplementary Methods and Good
Practice Guidance Arising from the Kyoto Protocol (KP Supplement). The section received 456
comments from expert reviewers and 91 comments from governments over the two rounds ofreview as mandated by the IPCC principles and procedures.
We assisted in the process of handling of comments by the authors of Section 2.3.9 in order toensure that all substantive expert and government review comments are afforded appropriate
consideration as well as to advise Lead Authors of Section 2.3.9 on handling
contentious/controversial issues. We are satisfied that the Lead Authors of Section 2.3.9 have given
appropriate consideration to all the comments received in the review process to produce a balanced
text that reflects the range of views on the topics covered.
We understand that a table containing all the comments received and responses by the authors will
be made available on the IPCC website by the final publication of the Report.
The Lead Authors addressed the abovementioned appropriately in the text of the Final Draft ofSection 2.3.9 of the KP Supplement.

Jennifer Jenkins

Junsheng LI[signature removed][signature removed]Report by Review Editors of Sections 2.5 through 2.7 of the KP
Supplement to the IPCC
We acted as Review Editors for Sections 2.5 through 2.7 of the 2013 Revised Supplementary
Methods and Good Practice Guidance Arising from the Kyoto Protocol (KP Supplement). Thesesections received 610 comments from expert reviewers and 150 comments from governments over
the two rounds of review as mandated by the IPCC principles and procedures.
We assisted in the process of handling of comments by the authors of Sections 2.5 through 2.7 inorder to ensure that all substantive expert and government review comments are afforded
appropriate consideration as well as to advise Lead Authors of Sections 2.5 through 2.7 on handling
contentious/controversial issues. We are satisfied that the Lead Authors of Sections 2.5 through 2.7
have given appropriate consideration to all the comments received in the review process to produce
a balanced text that reflects the range of views on the topics covered.
We understand that a table containing all the comments received and responses by the authors will
be made available on the IPCC website by the final publication of the Report.
The following are some of the important features of the review comments on Sections 2.5 through
2.7:a) Comments relating to the definition and identification of afforestation, reforestation anddeforestation areas were received for all sections of the KP-LULUCF supplement. This issue
was resolved by providing all definitions in section 1.2 of the supplement and to refer tothese in subsequence sections of the document. Modification to definitions specificallyapplied to forest management was made in the FM section in response to reviewercomments.
b) There was extensive revision of methodological elements and criteria which would trigger atechnical correction. In particular, the use of climate data in models for constructing a FMRL
was considered. There was also considerable reassessment of the need to apply a technicalcorrection if CEFC provisions are implemented. Clarification was also provided regarding theimplication of policy assumptions and changes in relation to the requirement for a technicalcorrection to the FMRL.
The Lead Authors addressed the abovementioned appropriately in the text of the Final Draft ofSections 2.5 through 2.7 of the KP Supplement.

[signature removed][signature removed][Kevin, Black][Rizaldi, Boer]Report by Review Editors of Section 2.8 of the KP Supplement to theIPCC
We acted as Review Editors for Section 2.8 of the 2013 Revised Supplementary Methods and Good
Practice Guidance Arising from the Kyoto Protocol (KP Supplement). The section received 407
comments from expert reviewers and 92 comments from governments over the two rounds ofreview as mandated by the IPCC principles and procedures.
We assisted in the process of handling of comments by the authors of Section 2.8 in order to ensurethat all substantive expert and government review comments are afforded appropriate
consideration as well as to advise Lead Authors of Section 2.8 on handling contentious/controversial
issues. We are satisfied that the Lead Authors of Section 2.8 have given appropriate consideration to
all the comments received in the review process to produce a balanced text that reflects the rangeof views on the topics covered.
We understand that a table containing all the comments received and responses by the authors will
be made available on the IPCC website by the final publication of the Report.
The Lead Authors addressed the abovementioned appropriately in the text of the Final Draft ofSection 2.8 of the KP Supplement.

Jennifer Jenkins

Junsheng LI[signature removed][signature removed]Report by Review Editors of Sections 2.9, 2.10, 2.11, 2.12 of KP
Supplement to the IPCC
We acted as Review Editors for Sections 2.9, 2.10, 2.11, 2.12 of the 2013 Revised Supplementary
Methods and Good Practice Guidance Arising from the Kyoto Protocol (KP Supplement). Sections 2.9,2.10, 2.11, 2.12 of the KP Supplement received 391 comments from expert reviewers and 115 fromgovernments over the two rounds of review as mandated by the IPCC principles and procedures.
We assisted in the process of handling of comments by the authors of Sections 2.9, 2.10, 2.11, 2.12
in order to ensure that all substantive expert and government review comments are afforded
appropriate consideration as well as to advise Lead Authors of Sections 2.9, 2.10, 2.11, 2.12 on
handling contentious/controversial issues. We are satisfied that the Lead Authors of Sections 2.9,2.10, 2.11, 2.12 of KP Supplement have given appropriate consideration to all the comments
received in the review process to produce a balanced text that reflects the range of views on thetopics covered.
We understand that a table containing all the comments received and responses by the authors will
be made available on the IPCC website by the final publication of the Report.

The following are some of the important features of the review comments on Sections 2.9, 2.10,2.11, 2.12:a) How to keep consistency with wetland supplement (WDR).
b) Harmonize how to deal with link to Agriculture sector (liming, Non-CO 2 gases).
c) Comments to Box2.9.1 and 2.10.2 in which areas in 1990 and in the commitment period are
explained for CM and GM, respectively, in SOD review round
The Lead Authors addressed the abovementioned appropriately in the text of the Final Draft ofSections 2.9, 2.10, 2.11, 2.12 of KP Supplement.

[Yasuhito Shirato][Lingxi Zhou][signature removed][signature removed]