IPCC Side Event

Refinement of 2006 IPCC
Guidelines
Perspectives and Potential impact on ongoing
joint activities undertaken with the UNFCCC
Secretariat
Marrakech, Morocco, 7 November 2016

UNFCCC Secretariat

PERSPECTIVESMethodological guidance for the new elements in the UNFCCC
reporting/review GLs- justification of “NE” for insignificant emissions
 Background: Para. 37 (b) of UNFCCC reporting GLs (24/CP.19): An emission should only
be considered insignificant if the likely level of emissions is below 0.05 per cent of thenational total GHG emissions,8 and does not exceed 500 kt CO2 eq. The total national
aggregate of estimated emissions for all gases and categories considered insignificant shallremain below 0.1 per cent of the national total GHG emissions. Parties should use
approximated AD and default IPCC EFs to derive a likely level of emissions for therespective category.
 The rationale behind is to support efficient use of resource to improve the inventory quality
by priorities limited resources.
Example 1

 Some Parties are reporting “NE” indicating the emission is insignificant, but the ERTs
approach to assess insignificance may not always consistent.
 Any specific guidance on the Parties and reviewers what “approximated AD”?
 Any consideration of other requirements in the existing GLs necessary? For example,
Existing GPG on key category analysis on trend:domestically and internationally rapidly increasing emissions from such insignificant
categories

More guidance on the time series consistency
Background: Requirements of historical data before 1990 for LULUCF and waste sector
 Parties my need to use more than one source of data to complete the timeseries of activity data and EFs for changing situation in these 15 years:
 Technological advancement, e.g., the combustion technologies, newabatement technologies
 New policy arrangements, e.g., the EU ETS More descriptive guidance on the time series consistency would be helpful.
Example 2:
 The Party is using three different EFs from three different sources fordifferent period of time, for public electricity and heat production (1A1a).
 Due to EU ETS data available after the introduction of EU ETS, the Party
indicates the shift from the use of its data based on plant-specifictechnologies to EU-ETS data.
 What is the criteria or the GPG for the decision making? Basically plantspecific data should be considered more reliable? Any guidance by theGuidelines?

Guidance on reviewing carbon balance in fuel use for the verification
purposeBackground: Para. 40 in UNFCCC reporting GLs: “For the purposes ofverification, Annex I Parties should compare their national estimates ofCO2 emissions from fuel combustion with those estimates obtainedusing the IPCC reference approach, as contained in the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines, and report the results of this comparison in the NIR.”
Example 3: Some Parties can have challenges in justifying why there
are large differences between the sectoral and reference approaches
for many years.
 Any specific guidance on how to check national energy statistics,
including definitions and units for energy/fuels, conversion factors
with specific numbers to check reconciliation of different units that canbe for verification purpose would be helpful.
 Depend on the reasons, difference itself is not an issue. Any
guidance to analyse the reason of difference and now to assessthem?

Additional guidance to apply 2006 IPCC GLsExample: non-energy use of fuels reported under the IPPU

Background: In 2006 GLs, basic principle is to report nonenergy use (NEU) emissions under IPPU. However, someParties have difficulties to separate data.
Example 4: Some Parties have challenges in reporting
natural gas used as fuel in coke plants in the iron and steel
production process because its energy statistics data do
not clearly show carbon balance for the coke production
and iron and steel production to present the carbon inputs(e.g. coking coal, fuel oil, other oils, natural gas) and thecarbon outputs.
Consequently, the estimation of emissions from natural gas
use is omitted from the inventory.
 Any additional guidance for the NEU in order to allow
Parties to collect data and report them under the IPPU
may be usefulUse-friendly way to present guidance
Can it be more simplified, anddistinguish basic requirements
and additional guidance part?

Suggestion to consider editorial tweaks
by updating the template and

using more graphics, tables and charts, than narrative description.

consistency and clarification of wordings e.g. the use of “should” “good practice”

 in order to highlight the basic/important points of each information;

 present the basic points as checklists.

Step 1:

Step 2:

ActionDetermine the following
categories or croplandtypes
management systems

representative area
Identify the average
inputs and outputs ofdead wood or litter foreach category, and
Estimate the net change
in DOM stocks

Methodological guidanceRefer the methods in Chapter
3, section XX

Net change = C inputs to theDOM pools –C outputs

Negative values indicate
a net decrease in thestock.
Identify values frominventories or scientificstudiesPotential Impact on Current Joint UNFCCC-IPCC
TFI Collaboration

Background and Mandate

SBI 42 Conclusions on Financial and Technical Support(FCCC/SBI/2015/10, paragraph 29)“The SBI noted the requests from non-Annex I Parties for… training

on the use of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) 2006 IPCC Guidelines for
National Greenhouse Gas Inventories...”See http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/sbi/eng/10.pdf
9Memorandum of Understanding between UNFCCC and IPCC

 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING between the UNFCCC secretariat and the secretariatof the IPCC was signed on 22 January 2016 to, among other things, collaborate in
responding to the mandate given to the UNFCCC secretariat by the SBI at its
forty-second session.

 Enhanced collaboration between the UNFCCC and IPCC in supporting the use of the2006 IPCC Guidelines by non-Annex I Parties.

10

UNFCCC Regional Hands-on Training Workshops (2015 - 2016)
in collaboration with the IPCC TFI TSU
 The UNFCCC regional hands-on training workshops were conducted incollaboration with partner organization (IPCC) and the CGE, using IPCC and CGE
training materials.
Africa(Namibia)

27 – 29 October 2015

Africa(Lesotho)

ParisAgreement(COP 21,Dec. 2015)

14 – 18 March 2016
Latin America
and theCaribbean(Panama)

6 - 10 June 2016

Asia-Pacific andEastern Europe(Rep. of Korea)

5 – 9 September 2016

 Primary objective: providing tools to establish or strengthen national institutionalarrangements to support enhanced reporting of national GHG inventories, and provide
training on the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.
 Plan to continue, subject to availability of funding, similar training for non-AnnexI Parties until 2021.

11

Possible add-on to the IPCC software
to facilitate the work of non-Annex I Parties
 Feedback received from participants to the 2016 round of regional training workshops on2006 GLs, allowed to identify the following possible elements of an add-on to thesoftware aimed at facilitating the future work of non-Annex I GHG inventory experts:

General impacts of the refinement of 2006 IPCC Guidelines Need to adjust the format/content of the hands-on training workshops organized incollaboration between the two Secretariats; Need to have the possible future add-on to the IPCC software for non-Annex I Parties
revised to incorporate the changes introduced in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines; Need for the UNFCCC Secretariat to ensure that e-learning courses on 2006 IPCC
Guidelines (English, French, Spanish) are revised to incorporate the changes
introduced in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, which entails potentially significant amount ofwork, time and funding.

Thank You!

Mr. William Agyemang-Bonsu, Manager, MDA Programme (WAgyemang-Bonsu@unfccc.int)