Review Comments by Governments on Second Order Draft of 2019 Refinement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (General comments)
CommentID
1784

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineGeneral7434

General8338

General000

CommentCountryResponse

The Chinese government appreciates and thanks the Bureau members, Lead Authors
and the TSU of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for theMethodology Report of 2019 Refinement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National
Greenhouse Gas Inventories for their hard efforts to prepare this report. In order tomake the IPCC assessment report more scientific, comprehensive and balanced, andtaking into full account the rationality and operability of the reported findings when
they are applied, the national government has put forward the following comments in
the hope that they can be adopted in the revision process.
1. Erroneous statements of China's sovereignty. There are common sense errors
concerning Hong Kong and Macao, China, in the report (Vol. 5, Chapter 2, page188). Correction must be made to all these errors, including but not limited to thosementioned in proposed amendments in the review comments, and it is hoped thatsuch errors will no longer occur in future reports.
2. Some of the formulas in the report are not rigorous or normative. As it is a widelyused methodology report, accurate formulas are especially important. Considering
the problems of ambiguity, inconsistent citation and dimensional errors in some of
the formulas in the report, it is suggested to correct them altogether.
3. The readability of the report to be increased. There are many problems in thereport in terms of linguistic logic, consistency and text editing, especially errors inserial number when mutual or cross quotations occur between unrevised and revisedparts. At the same time, for the newly added chapters such as texts on GHG
concentration measurement and inversion models, it is suggested to give them thescience-based definitions, and indicate the formulas involved and their sources, aswell as their application range and uncertainty. For example, 419-420, 540-546 and607 in Ch-6, Vol1. It is suggest that the overall revision be made to increase thereadability of the report.
4. With regard to newly added or revised texts, it is suggested to cite more literaturefrom developing countries to improve the integrity and practicality of the guidelines.

China

We would like to express our greatest gratitude for the hard work of the author teamin providing this excellent second order draft of the Refinement of the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories.

Germany

Noted

The method for calculating uncertainty and uncertainty limits in the instructions is
not specified.

Iran

Accepted

Authors note

Accepted with Regarding the point #1, Tables 2A.1 and 2A.2 in Chapter 2
modification of Vol.5 was amended by stating "Hong Kong Special
Administrative Region, China" and "Macao Special
Administrative Region, China". The same was applied inother chapters where relevant.
Regarding the points #2, #3 and #4, efforts were made toaddress those issues in the Final Draft. Some of the parts
specified in this comment was addressed by making somechanges in the Final Draft.

Text has been revised and concrete examples for approach 1
and approach 2 provided

CommentID
8340

VolumeChapter

From line

To lineCommentCountry

ResponseAuthors noteGeneralIn the calculation of uncertainty, in addition to N2O,CH4,CO2 the uncertainty of O,
Nox, NMVOC gases is calculated through the software, while the amount ofemissions of these gases is not calculated.

Iran

Noted

This comment is about the IPCC Inventory Software. It is outof scope of the 2019 Refinement.

8342

GeneralThe software does not have the ability to convert the unit, which increases the error
rate.

Iran

Noted

This comment is about the IPCC Inventory Software. It is outof scope of the 2019 Refinement.

8344

GeneralThere is no access to referrals for emission factors.

Iran

Noted

TSU will consider how to better help inventory compilers,
but no specific action can be taken at this stage.

6588

General5175

175

Presume 'deigned' is a typo and should be corrected to 'designed' (In the overview)

United Kingdom(of Great Britainand NorthernIreland)

Accepted

6590

General5279

279

Spreadsheet of waste model' doesn’t read well - should be changed to 'The waste
model spreadsheet' (in the overview)

United Kingdom(of Great Britainand Northern
Ireland)7126

GeneralGeneral

We note that there is no refinement of Vol 2 Ch5, Carbon Dioxide Transport,
Injection and Geological Storage. We would still like to highlight that there might bea need to develop guidance for how countris should report man made BECCS sinks
which effectively are negative emissions.

NorwayAccepted with Name should be consitent with the 2006 Guidelines, namely
modification "IPCC Waste Model". This name was used, instead of thesuggested name, to replace "Spreadsheet of waste model" inthe Final Draft.
Noted

It was decided by the 44th Session of the IPCC that Chapter
5 in Vol.2 is out of scope of this refinement - as indicated in
the approved outline of this report.
In addition, the BECCs situation is adequately addressed bythe existing 2006 IPCC Guidelines. In fact, Volume 2
Chapter 5 contains text identifying the possibility of negativeemissions resulting from capture and sequestration ofbiogenic CO2 - see page 5.8 in Chapter 5, Vol.2 of the 2006
IPCC Guidelines. Also, the request by the reviewer isalready addressed in the 2006 IPCC guidelines in chapter 2of the energy volume (Vol.2) and in the IPPU volume(Vol.3), furthermore the subtraction of the amount of CO2
captured (from fossil and/or biomass origin) has been
considered alerady in the reporting tables (Vol. 1) of the2006 IPCC Guidelines.