Climate Change: The Quality, Comparability, and Review of Emissions Inventories Vary Between Developed and Developing Nations
Published: 2010-07-30T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Nations that are Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change periodically submit inventories estimating their greenhouse gas emissions. The Convention Secretariat runs a review process to evaluate inventories from 41 "Annex I" nations, which are mostly economically developed nations. The 153 "non-Annex I" nations are generally less economically developed and have less stringent inventory reporting guidelines. The Department of State (State) represents the United States in international climate change negotiations. GAO was asked to report on (1) what is known about the comparability and quality of inventories and barriers, if any, to improvement; (2) what is known about the strengths and limits of the inventory review process; and (3) views of experts on implications for current and future international agreements to reduce emissions. GAO analyzed inventory reviews and inventories from the seven highest-emitting Annex I nations and seven of the highest emitting non-Annex I nations. GAO also selected and interviewed experts.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Recent reviews by expert teams convened by the Secretariat found that the 2009 inventories from the selected Annex I nations--Australia, Canada, Germany, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States--were generally comparable and of high quality. For selected non-Annex I nations--Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mexico, and South Korea--GAO found most inventories were dated and of lower comparability and quality. Experts GAO interviewed said data availability, scientific uncertainties, limited incentives, and different guidelines for non-Annex I nations were barriers to improving their inventories. The lack of comparable, high quality inventories from non-Annex I nations is important because they are the largest and fastest growing source of emissions, and information about their emissions is important to efforts to address climate change. There are no inventory reviews for non-Annex I nations. Experts said the inventory review process has notable strengths for Annex I nations as well as some limitations. The review process, which aims to ensure nations have accurate information on inventories, is rigorous, involves well-qualified reviewers, and provides feedback to improve inventories, according to experts. Among the limitations experts identified is a lack of independent verification of estimates due to the limited availability of independent statistics against which to compare inventories' data. Also, GAO found that the review process's quality assurance framework does not independently assess concerns about a limited supply of reviewers and inconsistent reviews, which could pose challenges in the future. Experts said Annex I nations' inventories and the inventory review process are generally sufficient for monitoring compliance with current agreements to reduce emissions. For non-Annex I nations, however, experts said the current system may be insufficient for monitoring compliance with future agreements, which may require more reporting. As part of ongoing negotiations to develop a new climate change agreement, State has emphasized the need for better information on emissions from high-emitting non-Annex I nations. While improving the inventory system is important to negotiations, some experts said disagreements about emissions limits for developed and developing nations pose a greater challenge.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO recommends that the Secretary of State work with other Parties to the Convention to (1) continue encouraging non-Annex I Parties to improve their inventories and (2) strengthen the inventory review process's quality assurance framework. State agreed with GAO's findings and recommendations.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: High-quality information on greenhouse gas emissions is critical to  domestic and international efforts to address climate change. Elevated  concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere could alter the  climate and adversely affect agriculture, infrastructure, ecosystems, and  human health. To address these risks, Congress is considering proposals  to limit greenhouse gas emissions, and the United States is participating in  international negotiations to develop an international response to climate  change.
In 1992, the United States and most nations of the world negotiated the  United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (the  Convention) to stabilize atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide  and five other greenhouse gases. As a step toward that goal, under the  1997 Kyoto Protocol to the Convention, 37 industrialized nations and the  European Community agreed to binding emissions targets for 2008  through 2012. Many nations with significant greenhouse gas emissions,  including China, India, and the United States, have not committed to such  binding targets in the Kyoto Protocol or subsequently. However, all  nations that are Parties to the Convention agreed, among other things, to  periodically provide inventories detailing their man-made emissions and  removals of greenhouse gases. These inventories, and processes for their  review, play an important role in ongoing negotiations for a post-2012  agreement to extend or succeed the Kyoto Protocol. In December 2009,  these negotiations resulted in the Copenhagen Accord, a nonbinding  political agreement in which, among other things, certain nations  announced various actions to reduce emissions and developing nations  agreed to submit more frequent reports on their emissions.
Forty-one of the Convention’s Parties—most of them economically  developed nations—are listed in Annex I of the Convention and submit  annual inventories of their greenhouse gas emissions. Developing an  inventory involves collecting data on activities across all sectors of a  nation’s economy that influence emissions and using numerous methods  to estimate associated emissions. Annex I nations’ inventories undergo a  review process coordinated by the Convention’s Secretariat, with reviews  by teams of international experts. The review teams evaluate consistency  with inventory guidelines agreed to by all Parties, including technical  methods developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change  (IPCC). An additional 153 Parties to the Convention are not listed in  Annex I and are known as non-Annex I nations. They are generally less  economically developed, though strong economic growth since 1992 in  some nations means their per-capita income now surpasses that of some  Annex I nations. They are encouraged to use the same technical methods  as Annex I nations in developing their inventories. However, the Parties  agreed that inventories from non-Annex I nations do not need to be  submitted as often, include estimates for as many gases, or undergo the  same reviews as inventories from Annex I nations. In 2003, we reported  that select Annex I nations varied in their adherence to reporting  standards and that there was little information on inventories from select  non-Annex I nations.
Emissions from Fuel Combustion, 2009 Edition (Paris, France, 2009).
Annex I nations have taken the position that Annex I nations are obliged to  begin to cut their emissions more deeply because they have emitted a large  share of the greenhouse gases that currently drive climate change.
In the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) prepares  the annual inventory with contributions from other agencies, including the  Departments of Agriculture and Energy. The Department of State (State)  represents the United States in international negotiations to develop a  post-2012 agreement to address climate change, and participates in the  assessment and review of whether the Convention is being effectively  implemented, including the inventory review process. State also officially  submits the U.S. inventory to the Convention’s Secretariat.
In response to your request, this report addresses the following questions:  (1) what is known about the comparability and quality of inventories  submitted by developed and developing nations and barriers, if any, to  improving comparability and quality; (2) what is known about the  strengths and limits of the Convention’s inventory review process; and (3)  what are the views of experts of the implications of the state of the  inventory system for establishing or monitoring compliance with  international agreements to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
To provide information on the comparability and quality of inventories, we  summarized the results of the most recent inventory reviews of the seven  largest emitting Annex I nations—Australia, Canada, Germany, Japan,  Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. For non-Annex I  nations, we assessed whether inventories from seven of the largest  greenhouse gas emitting nations—Brazil, China, India, Indonesia,  Malaysia, Mexico, and South Korea—included estimates for all major  greenhouse gases, for all economic sectors, and for various years, among  other factors. In 2005, the latest year for which global estimates are  available, these 14 nations represented about two-thirds of the greenhouse  gas emissions that were not related to land use and forestry. We did not  independently assess the comparability or quality of inventories from  Annex I nations or of emissions estimates from non-Annex I nations.  Though we identified some limitations with the inventory review process,  we believe that the reviews provide reasonable assessments of the  comparability and quality of inventories from the selected Annex I nations.  Our findings are not generalizable to other nations because the selected  nations are not necessarily representative. To address all three objectives,  we also summarized findings in the literature and the results of semi- structured interviews with 15 experts on national emissions inventories,  the Convention’s inventory review process, and international agreements.  We selected these experts based on recommendations from U.S. and  international government officials and researchers, the relevance and  extent of their publications, and their involvement in the Convention’s  inventory review process and related activities. We ensured that our group  of experts covered key perspectives, including the views of Annex I and  non-Annex I nations and the views of experts not directly involved in  preparing or reviewing inventories. Experts included agency and  international officials, researchers, and members of inventory review  teams. Not all of the experts provided their views on all issues. We identify  the number of experts providing views where relevant. Appendix I  provides additional information about our scope and methodology, and  appendix II lists the experts we interviewed.
We conducted this performance audit from September 2009 to July 2010 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those  standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient,  appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence  obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions  based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Greenhouse gases can affect the climate by trapping energy from the sun  that would otherwise escape the earth’s atmosphere. Various human and  natural activities emit greenhouse gases, with the production and burning  of fossil fuels for energy contributing around two-thirds of man-made  global emissions in 2005 (see fig. 1). The remaining third includes  emissions from industrial processes, such as steel production and  semiconductor manufacturing; agriculture, including emissions from the  application of fertilizers and from ruminant farm animals; land use, such  as deforestation and afforestation; and waste, such as methane emitted  from landfills. Carbon dioxide is the most important of the greenhouse  gases affected by human activity, accounting for about three-quarters of  global emissions in 2005, the most recent year for which data were  available.
Carbon dioxide  (other)
The 14 nations in our study differ greatly in the quantity of their  greenhouse gas emissions, the sources of those emissions, and their per- capita incomes. Emissions in 2005 ranged from about 7 billion metric tons  of carbon dioxide equivalent in China and 6 billion metric tons in the  United States, to about 300 million metric tons in Malaysia. The  contribution of various sectors to national emissions also differed across  nations, with emissions from energy and industrial processes accounting  for more than 70 percent of emissions in most industrialized nations and  20 percent or less of emissions in Indonesia and Brazil (see fig. 2).
The Convention established a Secretariat that, among other things,  supports negotiations, coordinates technical reviews of reports and  inventories, and compiles greenhouse gas inventory data submitted by  nations. The Secretariat has about 400 staff, located in Bonn, Germany,  and its efforts related to national inventories are funded by contributions  from the Parties. For the Secretariat’s core budget, Parties provided $52  million for the 2008-2009 budget cycle, of which the United States  contributed $9.5 million ($3.76 million in 2008 and $5.75 million in 2009),  excluding fees.
The Convention requires Parties to periodically report to the Secretariat  on their emissions of greenhouse gases resulting from human activities.  Parties do not generally measure their emissions, because doing so is not  generally feasible or cost effective, and instead estimate their emissions.  To help Parties develop estimates, the IPCC developed detailed  guidelines—which have evolved over time—describing how to estimate  emissions. The general approach is to use statistics on activities, known as  activity data, and estimates of the rate of emissions per unit of activity,  called emissions factors. For example, to estimate emissions from  passenger cars, the inventory preparers could multiply the number of  gallons of gasoline consumed by all cars by the estimated quantity of  emissions per gallon. The IPCC guidelines allow nations to use various  methods depending on their data and expertise. In some cases, with  adequate data, estimates of emissions can be as accurate as direct  measurements, for example for carbon dioxide emissions from the  combustion of fossil fuels which contribute the largest portion of  emissions for many nations.
The Parties agreed to the following five principles for inventories from  Annex I nations:    Transparent. Assumptions and methodologies should be clearly explained  to facilitate replication and assessment of the inventory.
Consistent. All elements should be internally consistent with inventories  of other years. Inventories are considered consistent if a Party uses the  same methodologies and data sets across all years.
Comparable. Estimates should be comparable among Parties and use  accepted methodologies and formats, including allocating emissions to the  six economic sectors defined by IPCC—energy, industrial processes,  solvent and other product use, agriculture, land-use change and forestry,  and waste.
Complete. Inventories should cover all sources and sinks and all gases  included in the guidelines.
Accurate. Estimates should not systematically over- or underestimate true  emissions as far as can be judged and should reduce uncertainties as far as  practical.
Annex I nations are to submit inventories annually consisting of two  components—inventory data in a common reporting format and a national  inventory report—both of which are publicly available on a Web site  maintained by the Secretariat. The common reporting format calls for  emissions estimates and the underlying activity data and emissions factors  for each of six sectors—energy, industrial processes, solvent and other  product use, agriculture, land-use change and forestry, and waste. It also  calls for data on the major sources that contribute to emissions in each  sector. The inventory data are to reflect a nation’s most recent reporting  year as well as all previous years back to the base year, generally 1990.  The 2010 reporting format called for nearly 150,000 items of inventory data  and other information from 1990 through 2008. The common format and  underlying detail facilitate comparisons across nations and make it easier  to review the data by, for example, enabling automated checks to ensure  emissions were properly calculated and to flag inconsistencies in data  reported over time.
The national inventory report should explain the development of the  estimates and data in the common reporting format and should enable  reviewers to understand and evaluate the inventory. The report should  include, among other things, descriptions of the methods used to calculate  emissions estimates, the rationale for selecting the methods used, and  information about the complexity of methods and the resulting precision  of the estimates; information on quality assurance procedures used;  discussion of any recalculations affecting previously submitted inventory  data; and information on improvements planned for future inventories.
The Secretariat coordinates an inventory review process that, among other  things, assesses the consistency of inventories from Annex I nations with  reporting guidelines. The purposes of this process are to ensure that  Parties are provided with (1) objective, consistent, transparent, thorough,  and comprehensive assessments of the inventories; (2) adequate and  reliable information on inventories from Annex I Parties; (3) assurance  that inventories are consistent with IPCC reporting guidelines; and (4)  assistance to improve the quality of inventories.
In supporting the inventory review process, the Secretariat provides  scientific and technical guidance on inventory issues and coordinates  implementation of Convention guidelines. Inventory reviews are  supervised by the head of the reporting, data, and analysis program within  the Secretariat. By June each year, the Secretariat checks each inventory  for completeness and format, called an initial check, and conducts a  preliminary assessment before submitting it to an inventory review team  for examination. The Secretariat assembles inventory review teams  composed of scientists and other experts from around the world to review  inventories from all Annex I Parties according to the Convention’s review  guidelines. The inventory review teams assess inventories in September by  reviewing activity data, emissions factors, methodologies, and other  elements of an inventory to determine if a nation has employed  appropriate standards, methodologies, and assumptions to compute its  emission estimates. From February through March, the inventory review  teams develop inventory review reports outlining their findings.
In accordance with the Convention’s principle of common, but  differentiated responsibilities, non-Annex I nations’ inventories’ format  and frequency differ from those for Annex I nations. The reporting  guidelines, which have evolved over time, encourage non-Annex I nations  to use the IPCC methodological guidelines in developing their inventories,  but do not specify that they must be used. While they submit inventories to  the Secretariat, non-Annex I nations’ inventories are not stand-alone  documents. Rather, a non-Annex I nation’s inventory is a component of its  national communication, a report that discusses steps the nation is taking  or plans to take to implement the Convention. Non-Annex I nations do not  have to use the common reporting format or submit a national inventory  report. Moreover, they do not submit an inventory each year, but instead  the Parties to the Convention determine the frequency of their  submissions. Parties have not agreed on a regular frequency for non- Annex I nations to submit their inventories.
section_title: Inventories From Seven Annex I Nations Were of Higher Comparability and Quality than Those From Seven Non-Annex I Nations Because of Several Barriers
paragraphs: According to expert inventory review teams, the 2009 greenhouse gas  inventories of seven Annex I nations were generally comparable and of  high quality, although some of their emissions estimates have substantial  uncertainty. In contrast, we found that the most recent inventories from  seven non-Annex I nations, although they met reporting guidelines, were  of lower quality and generally not comparable. Finally, experts identified  several barriers to improving inventory comparability and quality.
subsections: section_title: Recent Reviews Found That Selected Annex I Nations’ Inventories Were Comparable and of High Quality, but Some Estimates Have Substantial Uncertainty
paragraphs: All of the inventories submitted in 2009 by the seven selected Annex I  nations were generally comparable and of high quality, according to the  most recent inventory reviews conducted by expert review teams under  the Convention. The reviews found that six of the seven nations— Australia, Canada, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United  States—used appropriate methodologies and data, employed reasonable  assumptions, and did not systematically either over- or underestimate  emissions in their 2009 inventories (covering data from 1990 through  2007). The one exception to this was Germany’s 2009 inventory, which the  review team said did not follow guidelines for its agricultural emissions, in  part because of its attempt to use newer methods. The change significantly  reduced estimated emissions from agriculture, though the sector is a  relatively small contributor to Germany’s total emissions. One inventory  reviewer familiar with Germany’s 2009 inventory said its overall quality  was fairly good. In addition, Germany appears to have addressed the issue  of its agricultural emissions in its 2010 inventory submission by returning  to its previous methods, which had the effect of increasing its estimates of  emissions from agriculture. Experts said that the seven selected  inventories were generally comparable, which means they generally used  agreed-upon formats and methods. In addition, nine experts we  interviewed said they were of high quality and did not have major flaws.
These findings show significant improvement in the seven nations’  inventories since our 2003 report. For example, we reported in 2003 that  both Germany’s 2001 submission (covering data through 1999) and Japan’s  2000 submission (covering data through 1998) lacked a national inventory  report, a critical element that explains the data and methods used to  estimate emissions. Nearly all Annex I nations—including Germany and  Japan—now routinely submit this report. In addition, the review team  found Russia’s 2009 inventory showed major improvements. For example,  Russia included a full uncertainty analysis for the first time and improved  its quality assurance and quality control plan. Since our 2003 report, these  7 selected nations, and 34 other Annex I Parties, have submitted about  seven inventories, which were generally on time and more comprehensive  than previous inventories (see fig. 3).
The inventory review reports noted several potential problems that, while  relatively minor, could affect the quality of emissions estimates. For  example, the review of the 2009 U.S. inventory noted that assumptions  about the carbon content of coal are outdated because they are based on  data collected between 1973 and 1989. The effect on emissions estimates is  not clear, but the carbon content of the coal burned as fuel may change  over time, according to the inventory review report. Any such change  would affect emissions, since coal is the fuel for about half of all U.S.  electricity generation. The U.S. inventory also used a value from a 1996  agricultural waste management handbook to estimate nitrous oxide  emitted from livestock manure. The inventory review noted that livestock  productivity, especially for dairy cows, has increased greatly since 1996,  which would also increase each animal’s output of nitrous oxide  emissions. Using the IPCC’s methodology for calculating emissions from  excreted nitrogen, we estimated that this would lead to an underestimate  of roughly 4.7 percent of total nitrous oxide emissions and 0.2 percent of  total greenhouse gas emissions. Finally, the review of Russia’s 2009  inventory noted that it did not include carbon dioxide emissions from  organic forest soils, which the inventory review report said could be  significant. The inventory reviews and one expert we interviewed  attributed many of the potential underestimations to a lack of data or an  adequate IPCC-approved methodology and said that nations were  generally working to address the issues.
Even though the review teams found these seven inventories generally  comparable and of high quality, the nations reported substantial  uncertainty in many of the emissions estimates in their inventories. The  term “uncertainty” denotes a description of the range of values that could  be reasonably attributed to a quantity. All of the Annex I nations’  inventories we reviewed contained quantitative estimates of uncertainty.  As shown in table 1, six of the seven nations reported uncertainties for  their overall estimates between plus or minus 1 and 13 percent, and Russia  reported overall uncertainty of about plus or minus 40 percent. That  equates to an uncertainty of 800 million metric tons of carbon dioxide  equivalent, slightly more than Canada’s total emissions in 2007. Russia’s  relatively large uncertainty estimate could stem from several factors, such  as less precise national statistics. In addition, Russia generally used  aggregated national data rather than data that account for variation within  the nation. This would increase uncertainty because aggregated data do  not account for important differences that affect emissions, such as  different types of technology used in the energy sector. Japan and  Australia reported very low uncertainty in 2009. The inventory review  report noted that Japan’s estimate was lower than estimates from other  nations, but neither the report nor Japan’s inventory provides a full  explanation. The review team for Australia said that its uncertainty ranges  were generally consistent with typical uncertainty ranges reported for its  sectors. Despite high levels of uncertainty in some instances, the inventory  review teams found the seven inventories to be generally of high quality  because the teams judge quality based on consistency with guidelines  rather than strictly on the precision of the estimates.
The uncertainty of emissions estimates also varies among the different  sectors of a nation’s economy. For example, uncertainty is relatively low  for estimates of carbon dioxide emissions from the combustion of fossil  fuels because the data on fuel use are generally accurate and the process  that generates emissions is well understood. Uncertainty is much higher  for certain categories within agriculture and land-use. For example, some  nations report that the uncertainty in their estimates of nitrous oxide  emissions from agricultural soils is greater than 100 percent, in some cases  much greater. According to a March 2010 report by a National Research  Council committee, this results from scientific uncertainty in emission  factors. Table 2 shows the contribution of the most important sources of  uncertainty in the U.S. inventory. The sources of uncertainty in the other  six Annex I nations’ inventories follow a broadly similar pattern: the  largest sources of uncertainty are either large sources of emissions—such  as fossil fuel combustion and land use—or small but highly uncertain  categories—such as agricultural soils.
Shortcomings in inventory reporting guidelines may decrease the quality  and comparability of emissions estimates for land use, according to two  experts we interviewed. For example, the guidelines state that nations  should report all emissions from “managed forests,” but they have broad  latitude in assigning forested land to this category. This choice may have a  major effect on emissions; one expert said that it would be possible for  some nations with large forested areas, such as Brazil, to offset all their  emissions from deforestation by designating large areas of protected  forest as managed and taking credit for all of the carbon dioxide absorbed  by those forests. To address this potential inconsistency, the National  Research Council committee report recommended taking inventory of all  land-based emissions and sinks for all lands, not just man-made emissions  on managed lands. Others said that designating land as managed forest  remains the most practical way to estimate man-made emissions and  removals because other methods are not well developed.
section_title: Inventories From Selected Non-Annex I Nations Met Guidelines but Were of Lower Quality and Generally Not Comparable
paragraphs: Inventories from the non-Annex I nations we reviewed met the  Convention’s relevant reporting guidelines. All of the seven non-Annex I  nations we reviewed—Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mexico,  and South Korea—had submitted their first inventories. In addition,  Mexico submitted its second, third, and fourth inventories, and South  Korea submitted its second. Secretariat officials said the other selected  nations could submit their second inventories, as part of their national  communications, over the next few years. The reporting guidelines call for  non-Annex I nations to estimate emissions for 1990 or 1994 in their first  submission, and for 2000 in their second submissions, and to include  estimates for carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide in all  submissions. We found that all selected non-Annex I nations reported for  relevant years and these three gases, but we did not assess whether  nations used appropriate methodologies and assumptions to develop these  estimates.
However, the seven inventories were generally not comparable and were  of lower quality than inventories from Annex I nations in four ways:  1.  Inventories from select non-Annex I nations were outdated. The most  recent inventories from selected Annex I nations estimate emissions  for 1990-2008. However, except for Mexico and South Korea, the most  recently submitted inventories from selected non-Annex I nations are  for emissions for 1994. (See figure 4.) 2.  Some selected non-Annex I nations’ inventories do not estimate  emissions of all gases. As shown in figure 4, inventories from China,  India, Indonesia, and Malaysia did not include estimates of the  emissions of synthetic gases. Independent estimates show that while  synthetic gases were only 1 percent of global emissions in 2005, the  emissions of synthetic gases increased by 125 percent between 1990  and 2005. Their emissions have also grown substantially in some non- Annex I nations, such as China, which had the largest absolute  increase in synthetic gas emissions among all non-Annex I nations  between 1990 and 2005, according to information from the  International Energy Agency (IEA). 3.  Select non-Annex I nations’ inventories, to varying degrees, lacked  critical elements. We assessed inventories for several elements that,  according to reporting guidelines, can improve the quality and  transparency of inventories. First, only Brazil and Mexico provided a  quantitative analysis of the uncertainty of their estimates. Second, we  found that all inventories lacked adequate documentation of  methodologies, emission factors, and assumptions and that most  lacked descriptions of quality assurance and quality control measures.  Third, none of the select nations reported in a comparable format,  instead using different formats and levels of aggregation. For  example, China estimated some methane emissions from various  agricultural subsectors but grouped some of these estimates into only  one category. In contrast, South Korea estimated these same emissions  but reported them in separate categories. Overall, the lack of  documentation and of a common reporting format limited our ability  to identify and compare estimates across nations. Finally, only Mexico  included an analysis of its key categories of emissions. 4.  National statistics from some select non-Annex I nations are less  reliable. According to three experts we interviewed and literature,  some non-Annex I nations have less reliable national statistics systems  than most Annex I nations. These systems are the basis for emissions  estimates, and experts noted that the estimates are only as good as the  underlying data. For example, researchers estimated that the  uncertainty of carbon dioxide emissions from China’s energy sector  was as high as 20 percent. In contrast, reported uncertainties in  estimates of carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel use in many  developed nations are less than 5 percent. In addition, the  International Energy Agency noted a relatively large gap between its  energy statistics and those used in the national inventories of some  non-Annex I nations, highlighting a need for better collection of data  and reporting of energy statistics by some non-Annex I nations.
Emissions from Fuel Combustion, 2009 Edition, I.5. between 1990 and 2005, which was about the annual emissions of Canada,  Germany, Japan, and Russia in 2005 combined. Recognizing the  importance of information from non-Annex I nations, in March 2010, a  National Research Council committee recommended that Framework  gorous inventory reporting and  Convention Parties extend regular, rigorous inventory reporting and  review to developing nations.  review to developing nations.
National Research Council, Verifying Greenhouse Gas Emissions, 6.
section_title: Experts Identified Several Barriers to Improving the Comparability and Quality of Inventories
paragraphs: Experts we interviewed identified several barriers to improving the  comparability and quality of inventories. First, 10 of the 12 experts who  provided views about barriers said that a lack of data and scientific  knowledge makes some types of emissions difficult to estimate for both  Annex I and non-Annex I nations. For example, current estimates of  emissions related to biological processes, such as those from agriculture  and land use, can be uncertain because of limited data. Specifically,  nations do not always collect data on livestock nutrition, which can affect  methane emissions. In addition, emissions related to some biological  processes are difficult to estimate because they are not fully understood or  are inherently variable. Emissions related to agriculture, for example,  depend on the local climate, topography, soil, and vegetation. In March  2010, a National Research Council committee recommended further  scientific research and data collection to reduce the uncertainties in  estimates of agriculture, forestry, and land-use emissions. Such  emissions are important, contributing about one quarter of total global  emissions in 2005, the most recent year for which global data were  available. They are particularly important for some non-Annex I nations,  where they can be the largest sources of emissions. In Brazil and  Indonesia, for example, agriculture and land-use emissions accounted for  about 80 percent of total emissions in 2005.
Second, 11 experts said that non-Annex I nations have limited incentives  to produce better inventories. The current international system  encourages Annex I nations with commitments under the Kyoto Protocol  to improve their inventories. This is because their ability to participate in  the Kyoto Protocol’s flexibility mechanisms—which provide a cost- effective way to reduce emissions—is linked to, among other things, the  quality of certain aspects of their inventories. Late submissions,  omissions of estimates, or other shortcomings can all affect nations’  eligibility to use these mechanisms. Therefore, low-quality inventories  can affect nations’ ability to lower the costs of achieving their emissions  targets. While four experts we interviewed said that this linkage between  inventories and the flexibility mechanisms in the Kyoto Protocol has  driven improvements in many Annex I nations’ inventories, incentives for  non-Annex I nations are limited. Furthermore, four experts said that some  non-Annex I nations may avoid additional international reporting because  they see it as a first step toward adopting commitments to limit emissions.
In addition, experts and the national communications of selected non- Annex I nations identified several other barriers to improving the quality  and comparability of inventories from non-Annex I nations, including:    Less stringent reporting guidelines and lack of review. Reporting  guidelines differ between Annex I and non-Annex I nations. Non-Annex I  nations do not need to annually submit inventories or to report on as many  gases, for as many years, with as much detail, or in the same format as  Annex I nations. They also do not have to follow all IPCC methodological  guidelines, although they are encouraged to do so. Six experts said that  this less stringent reporting regime has contributed to the lack of quality  and comparability in inventories from non-Annex I nations. In addition,  non-Annex I nations have not benefited from the feedback of technical  reviews of their inventories, according to one expert.
Financial and other resource constraints. Though eight experts generally  said that many non-Annex I nations may lack needed financial and other  resources, they differed on the magnitude and importance of additional  international support. Non-Annex I nations may lack resources to improve  data collection efforts, conduct additional research, or establish national  inventory offices. The developed nations of Annex I provided the majority  of about $80 million that has been approved for the latest set of national  communications, which include inventories, from non-Annex I nations.  However, one expert said that this has not been sufficient to fully support  the activities needed. In their national communications, China and India  indicated needing funding to, for example, improve data collection. Two  experts said that improving non-Annex I nations’ inventories may require  significant resources. On the other hand, others said that the funds  involved may be relatively small, or that financial constraints may not be  significant, at least for major non-Annex I nations. For example, according  to a report from a National Research Council committee, significant  improvements in inventories from 10 of the largest emitting developing  nations could be achieved for about $11 million over 5 years. While  experts disagreed about the importance of additional funding, three said  that international funding should support capacity development in each  nation. They said that more continuous support would improve on the  current, project-based method of funding, which encourages nations to  assemble ad-hoc teams that collect data, write a report, and then disband.
Lack of data and nation-specific estimates of emissions factors.
According to four experts and the Convention Secretariat’s summary of  constraints identified by non-Annex I nations in their initial national  communications, the lack or poor quality of data or a reliance on default  emissions factors limit the quality of inventories. Most non-Annex I  nations identified that missing or inadequate data was a major constraint  for estimating emissions in at least one sector. For example, Indonesia  reported that it did not estimate carbon emissions from soils because the  data required were not available. Though inventory guidelines encourage  the use of nation-specific emissions factors that reflect national  circumstances, most non-Annex I nations use default values provided by  the IPCC. The reliance on default values can increase uncertainties of  estimates because national circumstances can differ significantly from the  defaults. For example, Denmark’s nation-specific emission factor for  methane emissions from sheep is twice as large as the default. Thus, if  Denmark had used the default value, it would have underestimated its  emissions from sheep by half.
section_title: The Inventory Review Process for Annex I Nations Has Several Strengths and Some Limitations, and No Comparable Process Exists for Non-Annex I Nations
paragraphs: Experts said that the process for reviewing inventories from Annex I  nations has several notable strengths. They also identified three  limitations, which may present challenges in the future. Moreover, we  found that although the review process includes steps to help ensure the  quality of reviews, there is no independent assessment of the process’  operations. Finally, there is no review process for inventories from non- Annex I nations.
subsections: section_title: The Process for Reviewing Inventories from Annex I Nations Has Several Strengths
paragraphs: Eight of the experts we interviewed said the process for reviewing  inventories from Annex I nations has several notable strengths that enable  it to generally meet its goals of providing accurate information on the  quality of inventories and helping nations improve their inventories.  (Figure 6 below depicts the inventory review process.)
Experts identified four broad categories of strengths:    Rigorous review process. Five experts said the rigorous review process  gives them confidence that review teams can identify major problems with  inventory estimates. For example, the Secretariat and review teams  compare data, emission factors, and estimates from each inventory (1)  from year to year, (2) with comparable figures in other inventories, and (3)  with data from alternative sources, such as the International Energy  Agency (IEA) and the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization.  Reviewers also ensure methods used to estimate emissions are  appropriate and meet accepted guidelines. In addition, IEA officials inform  the inventory review process by reviewing energy data in inventories and  independently identifying issues for review teams to consider further.
Qualified and respected reviewers. Three experts we interviewed said  that well-qualified and widely respected inventory reviewers give the  process credibility. Secretariat officials told us that a relatively small  number of people in the world have the expertise to evaluate inventories  without further training. Parties nominate reviewers, including leading  scientists and analysts, many of whom are also inventory developers in  their home nations. Reviewers must take training courses and pass  examinations that ensure they understand inventory guidelines and  appropriate methodologies before serving on a review team. Two experts  said reviewers’ experience and qualifications allow them to assess the  strengths and weaknesses in inventories, including whether nations use  appropriate methodologies. This is particularly important because some  nations use advanced or nation-specific approaches, which can be difficult  to assess.
Capacity building. Three experts said the inventory review process builds  expertise among reviewers from developed and developing nations.  Specifically, they said the review process brings inventory specialists  together from around the world, where they learn from each other and  observe how various nations tackle challenges in compiling their  inventories. Two experts said that reviewers return home and can use the  knowledge and contacts gained from their review team experiences to  improve their national inventories.
Constructive feedback. Two experts said that the inventory reviews  provide constructive feedback to improve inventories from Annex I  nations. This feedback includes identifying both major and minor  shortcomings in inventories. Secretariat officials said that review teams,  when they identify issues, must also offer recommendations for addressing  them. For example, reviewers noted Russia’s 2009 use of default  assumptions for much of its uncertainty analysis, and recommended that  Russia develop values that better match the methods and data used in  making the emissions estimates.
For these and other reasons, three experts we interviewed said that the  review process has helped improve the quality of inventories from Annex I  nations. Secretariat officials said that when review teams point out  discrepancies or errors, many nations revise and resubmit estimates to  correct problems. For example, Australia revised its estimates of carbon  dioxide emissions from croplands after a review team pointed out that  changes in croplands management affect emissions. Australia’s revisions  decreased estimated emissions from croplands in 1990 by 138 percent,  meaning the revisions had the effect of moving croplands from an  estimated source of greenhouse gas emissions to a sink removing  greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. For nations with Kyoto Protocol  commitments, review teams may adjust estimates if they are not satisfied  with a response to their findings. For example, the team reviewing  Greece’s 2006 inventory concluded that estimates in several categories  were based on methods, data, and emissions factors that did not adhere to  reporting guidelines. The review team was not satisfied with Greece’s  response, and recommended six adjustments to Greece’s estimates. These  adjustments lowered Greece’s official baseline energy sector emissions by  5 percent, from 82 million to 78 million metric tons of carbon dioxide  equivalent.
section_title: The Process for Reviewing Inventories from Annex I Nations Has Some Limitations
paragraphs: Experts, literature, and several nations identified some limitations of the  review process, which may present challenges in the future if, for example,  the process is expanded to incorporate non-Annex I nations. First, six  experts we interviewed said the process does not independently verify  emissions estimates or the quality of the underlying data. Review teams  primarily ensure the consistency of inventories with accepted standards  but do not check underlying activity data, such as the amount of fuel  burned. Review teams do compare underlying data with those reported in  other sources, but these other sources are not fully independent because  they also come from the nations that supply the inventories. Two experts  said that more thorough verification might involve comparing estimates to  observed measurements or independently constructing estimates from  raw data.
However, such approaches may be costly and, as a National Research  Council committee reported, the other methods currently available do not  allow independent verification of estimates. Furthermore, one expert said  that the review of emissions estimates from agricultural soils and land-use  sectors may be especially limited because of a lack of data and the  inherent difficulty in measuring these emissions. The inability to more  thoroughly assess inventories may reduce the reliability of review findings.  For example, the inventory review process may have overlooked a  significant shortcoming in at least one review. Specifically, in 2009, the  national audit office of one Annex I nation found that its national  inventory estimates may understate actual emissions by about a third  because the inventory preparers used questionable statistics. The relevant  agencies in that nation generally agreed with the audit office’s  recommendations based on its assessment. The review for that inventory,  however, did not identify this issue.
Second, four experts we interviewed and several nations have expressed  concerns about inconsistency across reviews, though the magnitude of  this potential problem is unclear. The concerns relate to the potential for  review teams to inconsistently apply standards when assessing an  inventory. Secretariat officials said the process of reviewing inventories  involves some degree of subjectivity, since reviewers use professional  judgment in applying inventory review guidelines to a specific inventory.  As a result, review teams might interpret and apply the guidelines  differently across nations or over time. Four experts we spoke with, as  well as several nations, have raised such concerns. For example, the  European Community reported that some nations have received, on  occasion, contradictory recommendations from inventory review teams.  Secretariat officials said lead reviewers are ultimately responsible for  consistent reviews but that Secretariat staff assist the review teams during  the process, and two Secretariat staff read through all draft inventory  reports, in part to identify and resolve possible inconsistencies. In  addition, lead reviewers develop guidance on consistency issues at annual  meetings. The magnitude of this potential problem is unclear, in part  because it has not been evaluated by an independent third party.
Third, three experts and officials we interviewed said there are not enough  well-qualified reviewers to sustain the process. Three experts and  Secretariat officials said that they did not know whether this shortage of  available experts has affected the overall quality of reviews. The  Secretariat has, in the past, reassigned staff and reviewers from work on  national communications to the review of inventory reports, and it  provides training to all reviewers to increase capacity and retain qualified  reviewers. However, Secretariat officials said it may be difficult to sustain  the quality of reviews in the future if the inventory review process is  expanded to include inventories from non-Annex I nations without  receiving additional resources, since this would substantially increase the  demands on the review process.
section_title: The Review Process Does Not Have an Independent Assessment of Its Operations
paragraphs: The review process includes steps to help ensure the quality of reviews,  but we found that its quality assurance framework does not independently  assess the process. Secretariat officials said that lead reviewers oversee  the drafting of review reports, and review officers, lead reviewers, and  review teams maintain a review transcript to keep track of potential issues  they have identified with inventories, of nations’ responses to those issues,  and of their resolution. However, lead reviewers, in the report of their 2009  meeting, expressed concern that these review transcripts are sometimes  incomplete and are not always submitted to the Secretariat. In providing  information on their experience with the review process and  recommendations for improvements, the nations of the European  Community suggested in late 2008 that the review process would benefit  from establishing clear quality assurance and quality control procedures as  well as from an annual analysis of its performance in relation to its  objectives. Secretariat officials said they designated a Quality Control  Officer who, along with the supervisor of the review process, reads all  draft review reports and may identify problems and check underlying  information in reports. Furthermore, Secretariat officials said that lead  reviewers meet annually to discuss the review process, assess and prepare  guidance about specific issues or concerns about the review process, and  develop summary papers to report to Parties.
Nonetheless, the review process lacks an independent assessment of its  operation. We examined several other review processes and found that  periodic external assessments by independent entities can provide useful  feedback to management and greater assurance that the review processes  are working as intended. Inventory guidelines call for Annex I nations to  carry out quality assurance activities for their own inventories, including a  planned system of reviews by personnel not directly involved in the  process. Though some United Nations and Framework Convention  oversight bodies have the ability to assess the inventory review process,  none have done so. The Secretariat has internal auditors, but they have  not audited the inventory review process and Secretariat officials said they  did not know of any plans to do so. Although the Compliance Committee  of the Kyoto Protocol has reviewed aspects of the review process, issuing  a report with information on consistency issues, this report was not a  systematic review and was not developed by people independent of the  review process.
section_title: No Inventory Review Process Exists for Non- Annex I Nations
paragraphs: As stated earlier, inventories from non-Annex I nations do not undergo  formal reviews. The Secretariat compiled a set of reports summarizing  inventory information reported by non-Annex I nations, such as inventory  estimates, national circumstances, and measures to address climate  change. However, Secretariat officials said they had not assessed the  consistency of non-Annex I nations’ inventories with accepted guidelines.  These officials also said that they did not plan to compile another report  covering non-Annex I nations’ second inventories because the Parties have  not agreed to this. An expert we interviewed said that the quality of  inventories from non-Annex I nations is unknown because their  inventories have not been formally reviewed. Two experts said that some  non-Annex I nations have resisted increased scrutiny of their inventories  because of sovereignty concerns, meaning that nations do not want to  disclose potentially sensitive information or data to other political bodies.  The growth in greenhouse gas emissions along with lower quality  inventories in some non-Annex I nations is likely to increase the pressure  for a public review of their inventories in the future.
section_title: Experts Said the Inventory System Is Generally Sufficient for Monitoring Compliance with Current Agreements, but Future Agreements with Non- Annex I Nations Could Pose Challenges
paragraphs: Most experts we interviewed said that the inventory system for Annex I  and non-Annex I nations is generally sufficient for monitoring compliance  with current agreements. However, they said that the system may not be  sufficient for monitoring non-Annex I nations’ compliance with future  agreements that include commitments for them to reduce emissions.
subsections: section_title: Experts Said the Inventory System Supports Current Agreements and International Negotiations
paragraphs: Eleven of the experts we interviewed said the inventory system— inventories and the process for reviewing them—is generally sufficient for  monitoring compliance with current agreements, though five raised some  concerns. All 11 of the experts who provided their views on the  implications of the inventory system expressed confidence that  inventories and the Convention’s inventory review process are suitable for  monitoring Annex I nations’ compliance with existing commitments to  limit emissions. In part, this is because emissions in many Annex I  nations primarily relate to energy and industrial activity, which can be  more straightforward to estimate and monitor than emissions from land  use and agriculture.
Nevertheless, five experts raised at least one of two potential challenges  facing the current system. First, three said they were cautious until they  see how the system performs under the more demanding conditions of  submitting and reviewing inventories that will show whether nations have  met their binding emission targets under the Kyoto Protocol. When  inventories are for years included in the Protocol’s commitment period,  nations may be more concerned about meeting emissions targets, and  review teams may face pressure to avoid negative findings. Second, three  experts said that flexibilities in the current inventory system or difficulties  in measuring and verifying emissions from some agriculture and land-use  segments could create complications for international emissions trading  under the Kyoto Protocol. Emissions trading under the Kyoto Protocol  allows nations with emissions lower than their Kyoto targets to sell excess  allowances to nations with emissions exceeding their targets. Though  Parties to the Kyoto Protocol developed and agreed to the current system,  three experts indicated that ensuring greater comparability of estimates  between nations and types of emissions might be useful for emissions  trading. For non-Annex I nations, eight experts said that their lower  quality inventories and lack of review do not present a current problem  since these nations do not have international commitments to limit their  emissions.
Seven of the experts said that the inventory system is sufficient to support  international negotiations. To develop agreements, two experts said,  negotiators need information on current and historic emissions from the  nations involved. Annex I nations submit this information in their annual  emissions inventories, the most recent of which cover emissions from  1990 to 2008. Although emissions estimates in most non-Annex I nations’  inventories are outdated, seven experts said that there are enough  independent estimates to provide negotiators with adequate information.  State officials said that independent estimates are useful, but official  national inventories would be preferable because they can lead to more  constructive discussions and can help create capacity in nations to better  measure emissions. In international negotiations, State has emphasized the  need for better information on emissions from all high-emitting nations,  including non-Annex I nations.
section_title: Experts Said the Inventory System May Not Be Sufficient for Monitoring Non-Annex I Nations’ Compliance with Future Agreements, Though Other Barriers Pose Greater Challenges
paragraphs: Different types of commitments would place different demands on the  inventory system. Thus, the implications of the state of the inventory  system for a future agreement will largely depend on the nature of that  agreement. For Annex I nations, eight experts said that future  commitments were likely to resemble current commitments and therefore  the inventory system is likely to be sufficient. However, for non-Annex I  nations, if future agreements include commitments to limit emissions, the  current system is not sufficient for monitoring their compliance, according  to nine experts. This is because non-Annex I nations do not submit  inventories frequently, the quality of their inventories varies, and they do  not undergo an independent technical review. Additional reporting and  review could pose challenges since it could take time for non-Annex I  nations to improve their inventories and Secretariat officials said that  adding non-Annex I nations to the current inventory review process could  strain the capacity of that system.
Some types of commitments by non-Annex I nations could be especially  difficult to monitor and verify, according to experts. In the nonbinding  2009 Copenhagen Accord, many nations submitted the actions they  intended to take to limit their greenhouse gas emissions, with Annex I  nations committing to emissions targets for 2020 and non-Annex I nations  announcing various actions to reduce emissions. Experts identified several  challenges with monitoring the implementation of some of the actions  proposed by non-Annex I nations (see table 3). For example, two experts  said that monitoring emissions reductions from estimates of future  business-as-usual emissions may prove challenging. They said this is  because such actions may require Parties to estimate reductions from a  highly uncertain projection of emissions that would have otherwise  occurred. Parties would also have to develop and agree on guidelines to  estimate and review business-as-usual emissions in addition to actual  emissions. Similarly, monitoring reductions in the intensity of greenhouse  gas emissions—emissions per unit of economic output, or gross domestic  product—could pose challenges because of uncertainties in estimates of  gross domestic product. One expert said that these challenges arise  because the Parties to the Convention created the current inventory  system to monitor compliance and evaluate progress among Annex I  nations with national targets. This expert added that Parties to a new  agreement may need to supplement the system to support the types of  actions under consideration by non-Annex I nations.
Eight of the experts we interviewed said that Parties to a future agreement  could overcome or mitigate many of the challenges related to inventories.  For example, two experts said that Parties could design agreements that  rely less on emissions estimates that are inherently uncertain or difficult to  verify. For example, quantitative targets could apply only to sectors or  gases that are relatively easy to measure and verify, such as carbon  dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels.
Three experts said that barriers other than the inventory system pose  greater challenges to designing and reaching agreements on climate  change. For example, nations disagree on the appropriate emissions limits  for developed and developing nations. According to three experts, such  disagreements were more of an obstacle to a comprehensive agreement in  the latest round of negotiations in Copenhagen than were inventory issues.  In addition, one expert pointed out that Parties to international  agreements generally have limited ability to get other Parties to comply.  For example, at least one nation with a binding emissions target under the  Kyoto Protocol is unlikely to meet its target based on current inventory  estimates and policies, according to this expert. Nations may be reluctant  to agree to an international agreement until they have some assurance that  other nations will follow through on their commitments.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: High quality and comparable information on national greenhouse gas  emissions is critical to designing and implementing international  responses to climate change. The nations we reviewed meet their  inventory reporting obligations, and review reports indicate this has  resulted in generally high quality inventories from the seven highest  emitting Annex I nations. However, the current inventory system does not  request high quality emissions information from non-Annex I nations,  which account for the largest and fastest growing share of global  emissions. We found that the inventories from seven selected high  emitting non-Annex I nations were generally outdated, not comparable,  and of lower quality than inventories from Annex I nations. The existing  gap in quality and comparability of inventories across developed and  developing nations makes it more difficult to establish and monitor  international agreements, since actions by both developed and developing  nations will be necessary to address climate change under future  international agreements. As a recent National Research Council  committee study pointed out, extending regular reporting and review to  more nations may require external funding and training, but the resources  needed for the largest emitting developing nations to produce better  inventories is relatively modest.
While our work suggests that the current inventory review process has  notable strengths, we identified limitations that may present challenges in  the future. For example, some experts and nations have reported concerns  about inconsistent reviews and that resources may not be sufficient in the  future. Stresses on the review process are likely to increase as review  teams begin to review inventories that cover years in which some nations  have binding emissions targets and if inventories from non-Annex I  nations are subjected to inventory review under a future agreement. The  Convention Secretariat has internal processes in place to help ensure  quality reviews, but no systematic independent review to assess the merits  of concerns about the consistency of reviews or to assess the need for  additional qualified reviewers in the future. Addressing these issues could  benefit the Secretariat by further enhancing confidence in its processes  and ensuring that it has the resources necessary to maintain high quality  reviews.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: We are making two recommendations to the Secretary of State:  1.  Recognizing the importance of high quality and comparable data on  emissions from Annex I and non-Annex I Parties to the Convention in  developing and monitoring international climate change agreements,  we recommend that the Secretary of State continue to work with other  Parties to the Convention in international negotiations to encourage  non-Annex I Parties, especially high-emitting nations, to enhance their  inventories, including by reporting in a more timely, comprehensive,  and comparable manner, and possibly establishing a process for  reviewing their inventories. 2.  To provide greater assurance that the review process has an adequate  supply of reviewers and provides consistent reviews, we recommend  that the Secretary of State, as the U.S. representative to the  Framework Convention, work with other Parties to the Convention to  explore strengthening the quality assurance framework for the  inventory review process. A stronger framework could include, for  example, having an independent reviewer periodically assess the  consistency of inventory reviews and whether the Secretariat has  sufficient resources and inventory reviewers to maintain its ability to  perform high quality inventory reviews.
section_title: Agency Comments and Third-Party Views
paragraphs: We provided State, the Convention Secretariat, and EPA with a draft of  this report for review and comment. State agreed with our findings and  recommendations and said that the department has been working with  international partners in negotiations and through bilateral and  multilateral partnerships to support and promote improved inventory  reporting and review. State’s comments are reproduced in appendix III.
The Convention Secretariat provided informal comments and said that it  appreciated our findings and conclusions. The Secretariat said that the  report provided a comprehensive overview of the existing system for  reporting and reviewing inventories under the Convention and the Kyoto  Protocol, as well as very useful recommendations on how this system  could evolve in the future and steps to be taken to that end. The  Secretariat noted our acknowledgement of the strengths of the inventory  review process for Annex I nations. In addition, the Secretariat  commented on our discussion of the limited availability of statistics  against which to compare inventory data, saying that this lack of data does  not imply that its review process lacks independent verification and that  its review teams rely on available statistics in conducting their reviews.  The Secretariat also said that the disparities in inventory quality across  Annex I and non-Annex I nations should be viewed in the context of the  “common but differentiated responsibilities” of developed and developing  nations under the Convention.
In addition, EPA and the Convention Secretariat provided technical  comments and clarifications, which we incorporated as appropriate.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of  this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the  report date. At that time, we will send copies to the appropriate  congressional committees, Secretary of State, Administrator of EPA,  Executive Secretary of the Convention Secretariat, and other interested  parties. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on GAO’s Web  site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff members have any questions about this report, please  contact me at (202) 512-3841 or stephensonj@gao.gov. Contact points for  our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on  the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this  report are listed in appendix IV.
section_title: Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: Our review provides information on: (1) the comparability, quality, and  barriers to improving inventories submitted by developed and developing  nations to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change  (the Convention); (2) the strengths and limitations of the Convention’s  inventory review process; and (3) the views of experts on the implications  for agreements to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. To address all of  these objectives, we reviewed relevant literature and Convention  documents; met with officials from the Environmental Protection Agency  (EPA), Department of State (State), the Convention  Secretariat, and  others to understand inventories, the inventory review process, and  international negotiations; and summarized the views of experts on these  issues.
Specifically, to address the first objective, we selected a nonprobability  sample of 14 nations, seven Annex I nations—Australia, Canada, Germany,  Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States—and seven non- Annex I nations—Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mexico, and  South Korea—based on the size of their emissions (including emissions  from land-use and land-use change and forestry). We selected the largest  emitting Annex I nations. For non-Annex I nations, we selected the largest  emitting nations who had submitted inventories based on data available at  the time. We omitted Myanmar because it did not submit an inventory to  the Convention. We also ensured coverage of major variations in selected  nation’s income and sectoral structure of their economies. To illustrate  this variation, we used the World Bank’s data on per capita income levels,  and data from the World Resources Institute and Convention Secretariat  on emissions from the energy and industrial processes sectors. The  selected 14 nations represented about two thirds of the world’s  greenhouse gas emissions not related to land use and forestry in 2005. Our  findings are not generalizable to other nations because the selected  nations are not necessarily representative.
To assess the comparability and quality of inventories from Annex I  nations, we summarized the results of the Convention’s 2009 reviews of  inventories from selected Annex I nations, the most recent reviews  available. We did not independently assess the validity of data,  assumptions, or methodologies underlying the inventories we reviewed.  Though we identified some limitations with the inventory review process,  we believe that reviews provide reasonable assessments of the  comparability and quality of inventories from selected Annex I nations.  For non-Annex I nations, we assessed whether the latest inventories from  selected nations included estimates for all major greenhouse gases  (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydroflurocarbons, sulfur  hexafluoride, and perfluorocarbons), for all sectors (energy, industrial  processes, solvent and other product use, agriculture, land-use change and  forestry, and waste) and various years, and checked for inclusion of key  inventory characteristics, including descriptions of uncertainty and quality  assurance and quality control measures, adequate documentation to  support estimates, a comparable format, and analysis to identify emissions  from key sources. Though inventory guidelines do not call for all of these  from non-Annex I nations, we believe they are indicative of the quality and  comparability of inventories. We did not independently assess emissions  estimates from non-Annex I nations. We used the quality principles agreed  to by Parties for Annex I nations—transparency, consistency,  comparability, completeness, and accuracy—as the basis of our review of  all inventories and in our discussions with experts. We also provide  information on the reported uncertainty of emissions estimates, a more  objective indicator of their precision, and on the timeliness of inventory  submissions. To identify barriers to improving inventories, we reviewed  relevant literature, including national communications from the seven  selected non-Annex I nations, and summarized the views of our expert  group.
To address the second objective, we summarized the results of semi- structured interviews with experts and Secretariat officials. We reviewed  Convention documentation about the inventory review process, including  Compliance Committee and Subsidiary Body for Implementation reports.
To address all three objectives, we summarized findings in the literature  and the results of semi-structured interviews with experts. First, we  identified 285 experts from our review of the literature and  recommendations from U.S. and international government officials and  researchers. From this list, we selected 15 experts based on (1) the  relevance and extent of their publications, (2) recommendations from  others in the inventory field, and (3) the extent to which experts served in  the Consultative Group of Experts (a group assembled by the Convention  to assist non-Annex I nations improve their national communications), as  lead reviewers in the Convention’s inventory review process, or were  members of the National Research Council’s committee on verifying  greenhouse gas emissions. Finally, to ensure coverage and range of  perspectives, we selected experts who had information about key sectors,  like the agriculture and energy sectors, came from both Annex I and non- Annex I nations and key institutions, and provided perspectives from both  those who were involved in the inventory review process and from those  not directly involved in preparing or reviewing inventories. Appendix II  lists the experts we interviewed, which included agency and international  officials, researchers, and members of inventory review teams. We  conducted a content analysis to assess experts’ responses and grouped  responses into overall themes. The views expressed by experts do not  necessarily represent the views of GAO. Not all of the experts provided  their views on all issues. We identify the number of experts providing  views where relevant.
During the course of our review, we interviewed officials, researchers, and  members of inventory review teams from State, EPA, and the Department  of Energy in Washington, D.C.; the Convention Secretariat’s office in Bonn,  Germany; and from various think tanks, nongovernmental organizations,  and international organizations.
We conducted this performance audit from September 2009 to July 2010 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those  standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient,  appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe the evidence  obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions  based on our audit objectives.
section_title: Appendix II: List of Experts
section_title: Appendix III: Comments from the Department of State
section_title: Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Michael Hix (Assistant Director),  Russell Burnett, Colleen Candrl, Kendall Childers, Quindi Franco, Cindy  Gilbert, Jack Hufnagle, Michael Kendix, Thomas Melito, Kim Raheb, Ben  Shouse, Jeanette Soares, Kiki Theodoropoulos, Rajneesh Verma, and  Loren Yager made key contributions to this report.
section_title: Related GAO Products
paragraphs: Climate Change: Observations on Options for Selling Emissions  Allowances in a Cap-and-Trade Program. GAO-10-377. Washington, D.C.:  February 24, 2010.
Climate Change Policy: Preliminary Observations on Options for  Distributing Emissions Allowances and Revenue under a Cap-and- Trade Program. GAO-09-950T. Washington, D.C.: August 4, 2009.
Climate Change Trade Measures: Estimating Industry Effects.  GAO-09-875T. Washington, D.C.: July 8, 2009.
Climate Change Trade Measures: Considerations for U.S. Policy Makers.  GAO-09-724R. Washington, D.C.: July 8, 2009.
Climate Change: Observations on the Potential Role of Carbon Offsets in  Climate Change Legislation. GAO-09-456T. Washington, D.C.: March 5,  2009.
Climate Change Science: High Quality Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data  are a Cornerstone of Programs to Address Climate Change. GAO-09-423T.  Washington, D.C.: February 24, 2009.
International Climate Change Programs: Lessons Learned from the  European Union’s Emissions Trading Scheme and the Kyoto Protocol’s  Clean Development Mechanism. GAO-09-151. Washington, D.C.:  November 18, 2008.
Carbon Offsets: The U.S. Voluntary Market is Growing, but Quality  Assurance Poses Challenges for Market Participants. GAO-08-1048.  Washington, D.C.: August 29, 2008.
Climate Change: Expert Opinion on the Economics of Policy Options to  Address Climate Change. GAO-08-605. Washington, D.C.: May 9, 2008.
International Energy: International Forums Contribute to Energy  Cooperation within Constraints. GAO-07-170. Washington, D.C.:  December 19, 2006.
Climate Change: Selected Nations’ Reports on Greenhouse Gas  Emissions Varied in Their Adherence to Standards. GAO-04-98.  Washington, D.C.: December 23, 2003.
Climate Change: Information on Three Air Pollutants’ Climate Effects  and Emissions Trends. GAO-03-25. Washington, D.C.: April 28, 2003.
International Environment: Expert’s Observations on Enhancing  Compliance With a Climate Change Agreement. GAO/RCED-99-248.  Washington, D.C.: August 23, 1999.
International Environment: Literature on the Effectiveness of  International Environmental Agreements. GAO/RCED-99-148.  Washington, D.C.: May, 1999.
Global Warming: Difficulties Assessing Countries’ Progress Stabilizing  Emissions of Greenhouse Gases. GAO/RCED-96-188. Washington, D.C.:  September 4, 1996.