|
|
5. As a team, one of the most
important things you need to do is develop a plan at the beginning of your
review period. This plan should prioritize work and should take into account
the review approach being used (i.e., Desk, Centralized, or In-Country) and
the relevant requirements in the UNFCCC review guidelines. The table below
summarizes requirements and timing for each review approach under both the
Convention and the Kyoto Protocol.
|
Review Approach
|
Number of Inventories to be
Reviewed
|
Time Allocated to Prepare Draft
Report, Convention
|
Time
Allocated to Prepare Draft Report, Kyoto
Protocol
|
Number of Experts on Team
|
|
Desk
|
Up to
5
|
7
weeks
|
8 weeks
|
12 (2
per Sector)
|
|
Centralized
|
Up to
8
|
10
weeks
|
8 weeks
|
12 (2
per Sector)
|
|
In-Country
|
1
|
4
weeks
|
8 weeks
|
6 (1
per Sector)
|
Note: A Party will be subjected to an in-country review at
least once every 5 years.
6. We will discuss each of these review approaches later in the lesson on the
Inventory Review Process. In your prioritization plan for the review you
should give extra attention to reviews of estimates for the Party’s
base year and the most recent year as problems with these estimates can lead
to biases in a Party’s emission trend, which are especially important
for compliance under the Kyoto Protocol.
7. The IPCC Guidelines and the IPCC Good Practice Guidance are your primary
technical resources for inventory reviews. It should be noted, though, that
these guidelines are not prescriptive (i.e., they do not tell Parties exactly
how to select each method or data source under all circumstances, although
decision trees are provided). Parties are given flexibility to use the best
available methods and data sources, given that they are of equivalent quality
to those described in the IPCC Good Practice Guidance. Therefore, you will
have to use your expert judgment in assessing the Parties’ performance
on the four fundamentals, namely: methods, data, national inventory process
(institutional arrangements/system), and transparency (documentation). There
is no single Good Practice method that will optimally address the unique
features of all Parties’ national circumstances.
|
|
