Review Comments by Experts on First Order Draft of 2019 Refinement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (General comments)
Comment ID

Volume782

Chapter

FromlineTo line

CommentExpert

ResponseAuthors note

GeneralThis is the "Refinement" of guidelines that already have seen
"Revised supplementary methods" and a "Wetlands supplement".
Will it be possible to provide, at the end of the process, aharmonized, at least digitally available version that covers the fullstate-of-the-art - without cross-referencing between different
volumes?

Wilfried Winiwarter

Rejected

IPCC decided to prepare a “2019 Refinement to the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines for National GHG Inventories” (2019 Refinement),
which will not replace the 2006 IPCC Guidelines; it will be used inconjunction with the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. Consolidating all
methodological guidance into a single report would require a new
IPCC decision.
However, guidance will be included in the Overview Chapter on
how to use this report in conjunction with the 2006 Guidelines andother IPCC Methodology Reports.

784

GeneralIn several instances (e.g. Vol. 4, Chapter 11, p. 11.12 footnotes)
Wilfried Winiwarter
remarks are provided of a change to the 1996 guidelines. While I
understand that this is original 2006 text (back then the remark may
have been relevant) in the 2019 Refinement it is confusing, at best.
Suggest to modify, e.g. by wording like: "change has been
introduced with 2006 IPCC GHG inventory guidelines"

Accepted withmodification

The proposed change is accepted in some cases while it is not inother cases, depending on the context of the text referring to 1996
Guidelines.
The footnotes 11 and 12 on page 11.12 in Chapter 11, Vol.4 (whichincludes reference to 1996 Guidelines) should be modified, because
the equation referred to here is Equation 11.6 which has beenrefined from 2006 Guidelines in this draft.
However, reference to 1996 Guidelines in the other parts of this draft
may still be valid depending on the context, which should not bechanged.

39

GeneralThe authors have done an excellent job at updating the Guidelines
in my view, There are several sections and quite a few EFs that are'TBD', but if these can be provided in the way the existing edits
have been delivered then this will serve as an excellent report.

David ReayAcceptedIn principle, there should not be "TBD" in the Second Order Draft.

7292

GeneralWith Annex 2.A1, for the first time IPCC GLs refer directly to"REDD-plus". I would strongly caution that any such step shouldbe very carefully considered, and shall only be taken when fullconsistency with the existing regulatory framework for REDD-plus
under the UNFCCC is maintained. Here, this doesn't seem to be thecase (detailed comments to follow).

Dirk Nemitz

Accepted withmodification

Vol.1, Chapter 1 should clarify that the IPCC Guidelines are fornational GHG inventories.
Vol.1, Chapter 1 also mention that it may be useful for otherpurposes.
Other Volumes may provide examples of the use of the IPCC
Guidelines for other purposes (including REDD+).
Those examples should not be interpreted as guidance.
Examples should be provided within a Box (not in Appendices orAnnexes) clearly separated from the guidance in relevant Volumes.

Comment ID

Volume6326

Chapter

Fromline

CommentExpert

ResponseGeneral

I am the manager of California Air Resources Board's GHG
inventory program. The comments submitted here contain ones
from staff of the California Air Resources Board, Glenn Gallagher
and Klaus Scott. They are lead staff for fluorinated gases inventoryand AFOLU inventory, respectively.

Anny Huang

Noted454General

my understanding is that the IPCC uses British English spelling; inwhich case there are many instances throughout of "program" thatshould be corrected to "programme". The exception being computer
programs and where the word is part of the title of a (US) Program.
In particular, e.g. in Chapter 2 of Vol. 1, the use should beconsistent as here both programme and program are used for nogood reason other than lack of editing

Pauline Midgley

Accepted5342

GeneralI think a reference to the General Data Protection Regulation, whichcomes into force in May 2018, should be added as GDPR imposes
obligations on persons requesting personal data to justify the needfor the data and to only request data that they need i.e. not the full
file. Personal data includes data relating to sole traders andpartnerships as well as persons. Similarly a household file with any
unique identifiers such as address or X/Y coordinates would comeunder GDPR requirements.

Gerry Brady

Accepted withmodification

Data protection regulations differ depending on the country but theissue could be addressed generally in Vol. 1.

2282

GeneralThe Parties who are using models should report the parameters ofmodels as an appendix

Eray ÖzdemirRejected

Some models may include hundreds of parameters, it would not besensible to have this as a general rule.
Section 6.7.1.2 of the Volume 1 of the 2006 GLs already provides
some useful guidance on how to transparently document the use ofmodels.

10150

GeneralWafa Aboul Hosn

Accepted

Abbreviation

To lineUse NSO (National Statistical Office) instead of NSA

Authors note

British English should be used except for proper nouns.