COP-8

As part of a general review of methodological issues associated with the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol, SBSTA 17 and COP-8 noted numerous activities related to the development of guidelines for reporting information and agreed that further work was required. As part of this revision, the COP invited the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to amend the Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. The COP also requested the Secretariat to provide information on the methodologies and data used by Parties to estimate greenhouse gas emissions and removals by sinks. The background to this request is based on a Secretariat paper on methodological work, which noted that some Parties use complex models whereas others use relatively simple calculations to determine their estimates of greenhouse gas emissions. The COP decided to continue consideration of this issue at SB 18 and SB 19.

Based on discussions held in SBSTA, the COP made a number of decisions related to reporting and review of information on assigned amounts and national registries, and to the expedited procedure for the review for reinstatement of eligibility to use the mechanisms. Details of these requirements are found in annexes to the decisions.

With regard to the information on assigned amounts Parties will be required to report in a standard electronic format the quantities of units issued, acquired, transferred or cancelled from emission reduction units (ERUs). These ERU's are created from Joint Implementation projects, certified emission reductions (CERs), Clean Development Mechanism projects assigned amount units (AAUs) and Emissions Trading and removal units (RMUs) generated by land use, land use change and forestry removals.

On national registries, the COP decided that each Annex I Party should provide information on such aspects as: the name and contact information of the registry administrator; a description of the database structure and capacity of the national registry; a description of how the national registry conforms to the technical standards for data exchange; and an overview of security measures.

Concerning the annual review of information, the COP decided that the review should cover information on ERUs, CERs, AAUs and RMUs, transaction log records, including records of any discrepancies, and information that substantiates or clarifies the information reported. It also stated that Annex I Parties should provide the expert review teams (ERTs) with effective access to their national registry during the review.

The decision included guidance to ERTs and what they should assess. This assessment should include whether the information is complete. It further states that ERTs should determine whether the information relating to issuance, cancellations, retirement, transfers, acquisitions and carry-over is consistent with the information contained in the national registry. The ERTs are also required to look at aspects related to, inter alia: the required level of the commitment period reserve; avoidance of double accounting; discrepancies in the transaction log; and whether the information is consistent with the information contained in the compilation and accounting database maintained by the Secretariat.

The COP also decided that the review of the calculation of the assigned amount should be concluded within one year. It was also decided that the annual review of information on ERUs, CERs, AAUs and RMUs shall be decided within one year and should include a number of steps including: the listing of all problems identified by the ERTs; comment by the Party concerned on the problems identified by the ERTs; a draft review report prepared by the ERTs; and comments by the concerned Party on the draft review report. The final review report is required to include an assessment of the specific problems identified.

On the review of the national registries, the COP decided that their purpose was to: ensure the accurate accounting of the issuance, holding, transfer, acquisition, cancellation and retirement of ERUs, CERs, AAUs and RMUs and the carry-over of ERUs, CERs and AAUs; assess the extent to which the registry requirements have been adhered to; assess the extent to which the registry conforms to technical standards for data exchange; and provide the COP/MOP and the Compliance Committee with reliable information on registries. The review of national registries shall be a thorough review as part of the initial review process, and a desk, or centralized review, of any changes of the registry. ERTs shall review the registry and assess whether: the information is complete; it conforms to technical standards; is in accordance with the modalities for the accounting of assigned amounts; contains adequate procedures to minimize discrepancies; contains adequate security measures; has information that is publicly available; and has safeguards to maintain and recover data in the event of a disaster.

The review of changes in the national registry, if necessary, shall follow the time frames and procedures for the annual review of information with regard to ERUs, CERs, AAUs and RMUs. The final report by the ERTs shall include an evaluation of the overall functioning of the registry and an assessment of identified problems.

On the expedited procedure for the review for the reinstatement of eligibility to use the mechanism, the COP decided that the purposes of such a review are to: provide a transparent and comprehensive technical assessment of information provided by the concerned Party; provide for an expedited review procedure to demonstrate that the concerned Party is no longer failing to meet eligibility requirements; and to ensure that the enforcement branch of the Compliance Committee has reliable information to consider a request for reinstatement. The review for the reinstatement of eligibility shall be an expedited procedure and limited to the matters which led to the suspension of the eligibility. Suspended Parties may submit new information to the Secretariat to assist in their review of eligibility. The review should be carried out expeditiously and shall be performed as a centralized or in-country review. The ERT should not be the same people that carried out the initial assessment and they should determine whether the issues that led to the suspension of eligibility have been resolved. The review of eligibility should take no longer than 11 weeks to complete, though the ERT may extend this period by four weeks if there is a delay in the provision of information by the affected Party. The ERT shall submit a final review report, which includes a statement on whether the matters of concern have adequately been addressed.

The COP also decided that lead reviewers of ERTs will be based in their home country or country of residence and will attend regularly scheduled meetings and review activities outside their home country.

The final decision of the COP, with respect to inventories. related to technical standards for data exchange between registry systems under the Kyoto Protocol. The draft decision of the first COP/MOP included an annex for technical standards. These standards included a set of principles in order to facilitate accuracy, transparency, efficiency, security, resilience and the ability to allow independent design of individual registry systems. The annex included a minimum standardized message sequence type for registry systems for transactions and other activities such as reconciliation of data and testing connections between registry systems. The annex also identified elements of serial numbers for each unit that is transacted. These included such aspects as: originating Party identifier, issuance commitment period, unit type, LULUCF activity, project identifier and unique number. It also identified numbering requirements for holding accounts, cancellation accounts and retirement accounts, and elements for each unique transaction number assigned by a registry.

The annex to the draft decision of the first COP/MOP on technical standards also included requirements for registry systems to ensure such aspects as: confidentiality, authentication, non-repudiation, integrity and auditability. It also stipulated that other registry requirements include an automated internal check to ensure: records and transactions are accurate; are protected against unauthorized manipulation and protected against exposure to security compromises; are robust; and prevent inconsistencies and discrepancies. Finally, it stated that the transaction log and registries shall reconcile their data with each other and that each registry system shall retain its records of unit holdings and transactions pertaining to a commitment period at least until questions of implementation have been resolved. Registries shall also provide information on confirmation of the completion or termination of transactions, the authorization or termination of legal entities associated with Joint Implementation and Clean Development Mechanism projects and legal entities that transfer or acquire ERUs, CERs, AAUs or RMUs.