Report on the individual review of the annual submission of Monaco submitted in 2017*

Transcription

1 United Nations FCCC/ARR/2017/MCO Distr.: General 23 March 2018 English only Report on the individual review of the annual submission of Monaco submitted in 2017* Note by the expert review team Summary Each Party included in Annex I to the Convention must submit an annual greenhouse gas (GHG) inventory covering emissions and removals of GHG emissions for all years from the base year (or period) to two years before the inventory due date (decision 24/CP.19). Parties included in Annex I to the Convention that are Parties to the Kyoto Protocol are also required to report supplementary information under Article 7, paragraph 1, of the Kyoto Protocol with the inventory submission due under the Convention. This report presents the results of the individual inventory review of the 2017 annual submission of Monaco, conducted by an expert review team in accordance with the Guidelines for review under Article 8 of the Kyoto Protocol. The review took place from 25 to 30 September 2017 in Bonn, Germany. * In the symbol for this document, 2017 refers to the year in which the inventory was submitted, not to the year of publication. GE (E)

2 Contents Paragraphs Abbreviations and acronyms... 3 I. Introduction II. Summary and general assessment of the 2017 annual submission III. Status of implementation of issues and/or problems raised in the previous review report IV. Issues identified in three successive reviews and not addressed by the Party V. Additional findings made during the 2017 individual inventory review VI. Application of adjustments VII. Annexes Accounting quantities for activities under Article 3, paragraph 3, and, if any, activities under Article 3, paragraph 4, of the Kyoto Protocol VIII. Question of implementation I. Overview of greenhouse gas emissions and removals for Monaco for submission year 2017 and data and information on activities under Article 3, paragraphs 3 and 4, of the Kyoto Protocol, as submitted by Monaco II. Information to be included in the compilation and accounting database III. Additional information to support findings in table IV. Documents and information used during the review Page 2

3 Abbreviations and acronyms 2006 IPCC Guidelines 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories AAU AD Annex A sources AR Article 8 review guidelines C CEF CER CH 4 CM CO 2 CO 2 eq CPR CRF EF ERT ERU F IND-COM FM FMRL F NON-CON GHG GM guidelines for national systems HFC HWP IE IEF IPCC IPCC good practice guidance IPPU KP-LULUCF activities LULUCF N NA NE N EFFLUENT NF 3 NH 3 NIR NO assigned amount unit activity data source categories included in Annex A to the Kyoto Protocol afforestation and reforestation Guidelines for review under Article 8 of the Kyoto Protocol carbon carbon emission factor certified emission reduction methane cropland management carbon dioxide carbon dioxide equivalent commitment period reserve common reporting format emission factor expert review team emission reduction unit fraction of industrial and commercial protein co-discharged into the sewer system forest management forest management reference level fraction of non-consumed protein added to wastewater greenhouse gas grazing land management Guidelines for national systems for the estimation of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions by sources and removals by sinks under Article 5, paragraph 1, of the Kyoto Protocol hydrofluorocarbon harvested wood products included elsewhere implied emission factor Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty Management in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories industrial processes and product use activities under Article 3, paragraphs 3 and 4, of the Kyoto Protocol land use, land-use change and forestry nitrogen not applicable not estimated total annual amount of nitrogen in wastewater effluent nitrogen trifluoride ammonia national inventory report not occurring 3

4 NOx N 2O PFC QA/QC RMU RV SEF SF 6 SIAR SMEG UNFCCC Annex I inventory reporting guidelines UNFCCC review guidelines WDR Wetlands Supplement nitrogen oxides nitrous oxide perfluorocarbon quality assurance/quality control removal unit revegetation standard electronic format sulfur hexafluoride standard independent assessment report Société Monégasque de l Electricité et du Gaz Guidelines for the preparation of national communications by Parties included in Annex I to the Convention, Part I: UNFCCC reporting guidelines on annual greenhouse gas inventories Guidelines for the technical review of information reported under the Convention related to greenhouse gas inventories, biennial reports and national communications by Parties included in Annex I to the Convention wetland drainage and rewetting 2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands 4

5 I. Introduction 1 1. This report covers the review of the 2017 annual submission of Monaco organized by the secretariat, in accordance with the Article 8 review guidelines (decision 22/CMP.1, as revised by decision 4/CMP.11). In accordance with the Article 8 review guidelines, this review process also encompasses the review under the Convention as described in the UNFCCC review guidelines, particularly in part III thereof, namely the UNFCCC guidelines for the technical review of greenhouse gas inventories from Parties included in Annex I to the Convention (decision 13/CP.20). The review took place from 25 to 30 September 2017 in Bonn, Germany, and was coordinated by Ms. Lisa Hanle, Ms. Alma Jean and Mr. Simon Wear (secretariat). Table 1 provides information on the composition of the ERT that conducted the review of Monaco. Table 1 Composition of the expert review team that conducted the review of Monaco Area of expertise Name Party Generalist Ms. Mausami Desai United States of America Ms. Jolanta Merkelienė Lithuania Energy Mr. Naofumi Kosaka Japan Ms. Brooke Perkins Mr. Michael Smith Australia New Zealand IPPU Mr. Kendal Blanco-Salas Costa Rica Ms. Ils Moorkens Mr. Ioannis Sempos Belgium Greece Agriculture Ms. Marta Alfaro Chile Ms. Fatou Gaye Ms. Alice Ryan Gambia New Zealand LULUCF Ms. Esther Mertens Belgium Mr. Koki Okawa Mr. Igor Onopchuk Mr. Iordanis Tzamtzis Japan Ukraine Greece Waste Mr. Mark Hunstone Australia Mr. Gabor Kis-Kovacs Mr. Phindile Mangwana Hungary South Africa Lead reviewers Ms. Alfaro Mr. Hunstone 2. The basis of the findings in this report is the assessment by the ERT of the consistency of the Party s 2017 annual submission with the Article 8 review guidelines. 1 At the time of publication of this report, Monaco had submitted its instrument of ratification of the Doha Amendment; however, the amendment had not yet entered into force. The implementation of the provisions of the Doha Amendment is therefore considered in this report in the context of decision 1/CMP.8, paragraph 6, pending the entry into force of the amendment. 5

6 The ERT has made recommendations that Monaco resolve the findings related to issues, 2 including issues designated as problems. 3 Other findings, and, if applicable, the encouragements of the ERT to Monaco to resolve them, are also included. 3. A draft version of this report was communicated to the Government of Monaco, which provided no comments. 4. Annex I shows annual GHG emissions for Monaco, including totals excluding and including the LULUCF sector, indirect CO 2 emissions and emissions by gas and by sector. Annex I also contains background data related to emissions and removals from KP- LULUCF activities, if elected, by gas, sector and activity for Monaco. 5. Information to be included in the compilation and accounting database can be found in annex II. II. Summary and general assessment of the 2017 annual submission 6. Table 2 provides the assessment by the ERT of the annual submission with respect to the tasks undertaken during the review. Further information on the issues identified, as well as additional findings, may be found in tables 3 and 5. Table 2 Summary of review results and general assessment of the inventory of Monaco Assessment Dates of submission Review format Original submission: 20 September 2017 (NIR), 20 April 2017, Version 2 (CRF tables), 22 September 2017 (SEF-CP2-2016) Centralized Issue or problem (s) in table 3 and/or 5 a Application of the requirements of the UNFCCC Annex I inventory reporting guidelines and Wetlands Supplement (if applicable) 1. Have any issues been identified in the following areas: (a) Identification of key categories (b) Selection and use of methodologies and assumptions No Yes L.11, L.13 (c) Development and selection of EFs Yes E.13, E.14 (d) Collection and selection of AD Yes E.2, E.6, E.7, E.16 (e) Reporting of recalculations Yes G.8, I.13, L.12 (f) Reporting of a consistent time series Yes I.8 (g) Reporting of uncertainties, including methodologies Yes G.16, L.7 (h) QA/QC QA/QC procedures were assessed in the context of the national system (see para. 2 in this table) (i) Missing categories/completeness b Yes I.11, I.12, KL.1 (j) Application of corrections to the inventory No 2 Issues are defined in decision 13/CP.20, annex, paragraph Problems are defined in decision 22/CMP.1, annex, paragraphs 68 and 69, as revised by decision 4/CMP.11. 6

7 Assessment Issue or problem (s) in table 3 and/or 5 a Significance threshold For categories reported as insignificant, has the Party provided sufficient information showing that the likely level of emissions meets the criteria in paragraph 37(b) of the UNFCCC Annex I inventory reporting guidelines? NA Description of trends Did the ERT conclude that the description in the NIR of the trends for the different gases and sectors is reasonable? No E.11, I.14, L.10, W.2 Supplementary information under the Kyoto Protocol 2. Have any issues been identified related to the national system: (a) The overall organization of the national system, including the effectiveness and reliability of the institutional, procedural and legal arrangements Yes G.2, G.10, G.11, G.17, G.21 (b) Performance of the national system functions Yes G.1, G.3, G.4, G.5, G.6 3. Have any issues been identified related to the national registry: (a) Overall functioning of the national registry (b) Performance of the functions of the national registry and the technical standards for data exchange 4. Have any issues been identified related to reporting of information on ERUs, CERs, AAUs and RMUs and on discrepancies reported in accordance with decision 15/CMP.1, annex, chapter I.E, taking into consideration any findings or recommendations contained in the SIAR? 5. Have any issues been identified in matters related to Article 3, paragraph 14, of the Kyoto Protocol, specifically problems related to the transparency, completeness or timeliness of reporting on the Party s activities related to the priority actions listed in decision 15/CMP.1, annex, paragraph 24, including any changes since the previous annual submission? NA NA Yes G.19 No 6. Have any issues been identified related to the reporting of LULUCF activities under Article 3, paragraphs 3 and 4, of the Kyoto Protocol, as follows: (a) Reporting requirements in decision 2/CMP.8, annex II, paragraphs 1 5 (b) Demonstration of methodological consistency between the reference level and reporting on FM in accordance with decision 2/CMP.7, annex, paragraph 14 Yes No KL.2 (c) Reporting requirements of decision 6/CMP.9 Yes KL.1, KL.3 CPR (d) Country-specific information to support provisions for natural disturbances, in accordance with decision 2/CMP.7, annex, paragraphs 33 and 34 Was the CPR reported in accordance with the annex to decision 18/CP.7, the annex to decision 11/CMP.1 and decision 1/CMP.8, paragraph 18? NA No G.18 7

8 Assessment Adjustments Has the ERT applied an adjustment under Article 5, paragraph 2, of the Kyoto Protocol? Did the Party submit a revised estimate to replace a previously applied adjustment? No NA Issue or problem (s) in table 3 and/or 5 a Monaco does not have a previously applied adjustment Response from the Party during the review Has the Party provided the ERT with responses to the questions raised, including the data and information necessary for the assessment of conformity with the UNFCCC Annex I inventory reporting guidelines and any further guidance adopted by the Conference of the Parties? Partially G.21 Recommendation for an exceptional in-country review On the basis of the issues identified, does the ERT recommend that the next review be conducted as an in-country review? Yes Please refer to annex III for a list of questions and issues to be considered during this in-country review Questions of implementation Did the ERT list a question of implementation? Yes G.17 a The ERT identified additional issues and/or problems in all sectors that are not listed in this table but are included in table 3 and/or 5. b Missing categories for which methods are provided in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines may affect completeness and are listed in annex III. III. Status of implementation of issues and/or problems raised in the previous review report 7. Table 3 compiles all the recommendations made in previous review reports that were included in the previous review report, published on 29 August For each issue and/or problem, the ERT specified whether it believes the issue and/or problem has been resolved by the conclusion of the review of the 2017 annual submission and provided the rationale for its determination, which takes into consideration the publication date of the previous review report and national circumstances. Table 3 Status of implementation of issues and/or problems raised in the previous review report of Monaco Issue and/or problem classification a Recommendation made in previous review report ERT assessment and rationale General G.1 Annual submission (G.1 and G.15, 2015) (7, 2014) Adherence to the UNFCCC Annex I inventory reporting guidelines Submit all the elements of the next inventory by 15 April 2015, as required by decision 24/CP.19. Not resolved. The 2016 NIR was submitted on 12 September 2017 and the 2017 NIR was submitted on 20 September During the review, Monaco stated that the 2018 submission will be submitted on time (see G.17 in table 5). 4 FCCC/ARR/2015/MCO. Monaco did not submit the NIR for the 2016 annual submission until 12 September The 2016 annual submission of Monaco has not yet been reviewed and therefore is not included in this table. 8

9 Issue and/or problem classification a Recommendation made in previous review report ERT assessment and rationale G.2 Inventory planning (G.2, 2015) (17, 2014) (12, 2013) Accuracy Strengthen cooperation with national institutions and companies in order to increase the use of available countryspecific data for the preparation of the inventory so as to develop more accurate estimates. Addressing. Monaco explained that this work is ongoing (see s E.1 and E.2 below). Chapter 10 of the NIR identifies areas where cooperation has been strengthened and access to country-specific data has been improved. G.3 Inventory planning (G.3, 2015) (15, 2014) Adherence to the UNFCCC Annex I inventory reporting guidelines G.4 Inventory planning (G.4, 2015) (18, 2014) (12(c), 2013) Adherence to the UNFCCC Annex I inventory reporting guidelines G.5 Inventory planning (G.5, 2015) (18, 2014) (12, 2013) (16, 2012) Adherence to the UNFCCC Annex I inventory reporting guidelines G.6 Inventory planning (G.6, 2015) (19, 2014) (12, 2013) (24, 2012) Adherence to the UNFCCC Annex I inventory reporting guidelines Amend the annex with information on the QA/QC and verification procedures implemented for each of the sectors. Continue updating and improving the QA/QC plan, with a view to improving the effectiveness of the QA/QC procedures. Provide information concerning the implementation of the QA/QC plan, in particular regarding the prioritization of inventory improvements on the basis of the key category analysis and uncertainty assessment. Revise the organization of the QA activities, taking into account that, in principle and in accordance with the IPCC good practice guidance, these should not be carried out by experts involved in the preparation of the inventory. Not resolved. The 2017 NIR does not include this annex. During the review, Monaco explained that this annex will be included in the next submission. Addressing. During the review, Monaco explained that updates and improvements to the QA/QC plan are ongoing. Monaco did not provide the ERT with an updated plan and explained that chapter 1 of the NIR contains a basic description of the QA/QC roles and procedures applied (see G.17 in table 5). Addressing. Monaco demonstrates the application of QA/QC procedures within most category sections, including improvements to some key categories resulting from QA, as reported in chapter 10 of the NIR (see I.2 below). During the review, Monaco explained that efforts to address this as part of its inventory planning process are in progress and will be reported on more transparently in the next NIR (see G.6 below). Not resolved. During the review week, Monaco explained that owing to the delays in the preparation of the 2017 NIR, no QA activities were implemented by external experts not involved in the inventory compilation process. G.7 Key category analysis (G.9, 2015) (23, 2014) (19, 2013) Adherence to the UNFCCC Annex I inventory reporting guidelines G.8 Recalculations (G.11, 2015) (13, 2014) Ensure the consistent reporting of the key categories between the NIR and the CRF tables. For example, the information in CRF table 7 includes only references to the level assessment, and the N 2O emissions from road transportation have not been included in the list of key categories in the CRF tables. Report the recalculations under each category and include a clear explanation of the reasons for the recalculations Resolved. The key category analysis included in the introduction of chapter 1 of the NIR is consistent with the CRF tables (see G.15 in table 5). Addressing. Monaco has included some explanations of recalculations, including sources of information and assumptions 9

10 Issue and/or problem classification a Recommendation made in previous review report ERT assessment and rationale Adherence to the UNFCCC Annex I inventory reporting guidelines made in the course of previous reviews, clearly distinguishing them from the recalculations made for the purpose of the current submission. since the previous submission, in accordance with decision 24/CP.19, annex I, paragraphs 43, 44 and 50(h). The ERT notes that not all recalculations have been justified or explained consistent with decision 24/CP.19, annex I, paragraph 50(h) (see s I.13, L.12 and L.15 in table 5). G.9 Uncertainty analysis (G.13, 2015) (24, 2014) (15, 2013) (20, 2012) Adherence to the UNFCCC Annex I inventory reporting guidelines G.10 National system (G.7, 2015) (20, 2014) (12, 2013) Adherence to reporting guidelines under Article 7, paragraph 1, of the Kyoto Protocol G.11 National system (G.8, 2015) (21, 2014) (12, 2013) Adherence to reporting guidelines under Article 7, paragraph 1, of the Kyoto Protocol G.12 CPR (G.16, 2015) Transparency G.13 Kyoto Protocol units (G.17, 2015) Transparency Energy E.1 Fuel combustion reference approach (E.4, 2015) (35, 2014) (29, 2013) Transparency Use the 95 per cent confidence interval to report uncertainties, as recommended in the IPCC good practice guidance, to ensure comparability with the reporting of other Parties. Implement measures to strengthen the national system. In order to improve the national system, ensure that adequate resources are allocated to the preparation of the inventory. Report information on the calculation of the CPR in the NIR. Report SEF tables and use the notation key NO in cases where no units of a particular type occurred in a transaction. Explain the difficulties with the availability of information in the NIR and try to develop methods to collect data in order to complete the reference approach. Resolved. Monaco provided, in annex 2 to the NIR, a summary of the uncertainty analysis consistent with the 2006 IPCC Guidelines (volume 1, table 3.3). Addressing. Monaco explained that work is ongoing to sufficiently implement measures to adhere to the UNFCCC Annex I inventory reporting guidelines. Improvements were noted in chapter 10 of the NIR, indicating that measures are being implemented to improve specific functions of the national system, such as QA implementation and data collection (see s G.1 and G.2 above, G.11, E.1 and E.2 below and G.17 in table 5). Addressing. Monaco explained in its NIR (section 13.2) that it has strengthened its financial capacity for the production and reporting of the inventory. During the review, Monaco further explained that a new staff member will join the inventory agency and increase the national capacity to prepare the inventory (see G.17 in table 5). Resolved. Monaco has reported information on the calculation of the CPR in the NIR (p.203). However, the calculation is based on an error in the determination of the base year (see G.18 in table 5). Resolved. SEF tables were not included with Monaco s 2017 submission; however, prior to the review week (on 22 September 2017), Monaco submitted its SEF tables and used the notation key NO (see G.19 in table 5). Addressing. Monaco explained that an actual survey concerning transport is in progress for the reference approach (see NIR section ). During the review, the Party also explained that this issue will be examined further for the next 10

11 Issue and/or problem classification a Recommendation made in previous review report ERT assessment and rationale submission. E.2 International bunkers and multilateral operations (E.5, 2015) (36, 2014) (31, 2013) (37, 2012) Accuracy Repeat the survey on international and domestic navigation on a regular basis to enhance the accuracy of the allocation of emissions between international and domestic navigation. Addressing. Monaco conducted the survey in 2016 and is analysing the data. E.3 Feedstocks, reductants and other non-energy use of fuels (E.6, 2015) (37, 2014) (35, 2013) (39, 2012) Comparability Revise the reporting of feedstocks and non-energy use of fuels in CRF table 1.A(d) in a consistent manner under the energy and industrial processes sectors and explain in the NIR the use and disposal of lubricants in the country. Addressing. Monaco now reports bitumen and lubricants as NO in CRF table 1.A(d). Monaco explained that the reason for not including bitumen in CRF table 1.A(d) is that the CO 2 emissions reported for road paving with asphalt (2.D.3) are indirect CO 2 emissions from atmospheric oxidation of non-methane volatile organic compounds. The ERT does not agree with this approach because the fact that the indirect emissions from road paving with asphalt are reported means that bitumen is delivered to Monaco, and therefore this bitumen should be reported. The AD for excluded carbon for bitumen are for total deliveries (see the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, volume 2, section 6.6.4). The explanation provided by Monaco is also inconsistent with chapter 9 of the NIR. The discussion on emissions from lubricants can be found under the IPPU sector (see I.11 in table 5). E.4 1.A.1 Energy industries biomass CO 2 (E.7, 2015) (38, 2014) (36, 2013) Accuracy Investigate the possibility of collecting information on the composition of the municipal solid waste incinerated and determine a country-specific EF in order to apply a tier 2 method for the category. Resolved. Monaco has applied a tier 2a method for CO 2 emissions with a countryspecific total waste amount and waste fraction since the 2015 submission. This methodological choice is consistent with the decision tree provided in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines (volume 5, figure 5.1). E.5 1.A.1.a Public electricity and heat production biomass CO 2, CH 4 and N 2O (E.9, 2015) (40, 2014) (54, 2013) Adherence to the UNFCCC Annex I inventory reporting guidelines Improve QA/QC checks in order to avoid mistakes associated with the use of notation keys in future annual submissions. Resolved. Biomass consumption under the category public electricity and heat production is correctly reported. E.6 1.A.4 Other sectors all fuels CO 2, CH 4 and N 2O (E.10, 2015) (42, 2014) (44, 2013) Make efforts to report emissions from the commercial/institutional and residential subcategories separately. Addressing. CO 2, CH 4 and N 2O emissions continue to be reported aggregated under the residential category. During the review, Monaco explained that it plans to separate the subcategories if the development of some tools by other organizations is 11

12 Issue and/or problem classification a Recommendation made in previous review report ERT assessment and rationale (44, 2012) (35, 2011) (37, 2010) (46, 2009) (34, 2008) Comparability completed and sufficient data become available. E.7 1.B.2.b Natural gas gaseous fuels CH 4 (E.11, 2015) Comparability E.8 1.B.2.b Natural gas gaseous fuels CH 4 (E.12, 2015) Accuracy Use natural gas utility sales expressed in m 3 as AD in the CRF tables. Correct the EF for natural gas distribution and enhance QA/QC procedures to avoid this error in the future. Addressing. Monaco changed the reporting of AD in CRF table 1.B.2 from kt of CH 4 to m of CH 4 (pipeline length of natural gas). Footnote 1 to the table requires that the unit of the AD in the unit column be specified in either energy units or volume units (e.g. PJ, 10 6 m 3 and 10 6 barrel/year). Resolved. Monaco changed the EF for metering equipment from 303 mg/unit/hour (table 6-7 of the Compendium of the American Petroleum Institute (2009)) to 14.5 kg/unit/year (table 6-8), leading to an increase in estimated CH 4 emissions. The ERT agrees with the Party s reporting. E.9 1.B.2.b Natural gas gaseous fuels CO 2 (E.13, 2015) Transparency Correct, in the NIR, the transcription error for the EF for CO 2 emissions from medium pressure (four bars) cast iron pipes and improve QA/QC procedures to avoid such errors in the future. Resolved. No transcription error was observed by the ERT. Monaco applies a CO 2 EF of 280 kg/km/year for cast iron pipes, which is consistent with table 6-10 of the American Petroleum Institute Compendium. E.10 1.B.2.b Natural gas gaseous fuels CO 2 and CH 4 (E.14, 2015) Accuracy IPPU I.1 2. General (IPPU) (I.1, 2015) (45, 2014) Transparency I.2 2. General (IPPU) (I.2, 2015) (47, 2014) Transparency I.3 2.D Non-energy products from fuels and solvent use CO 2 (I.2, 2015) (55, 2014) Verify the gas composition in natural gas distribution with the energy provider and, if necessary, adjust the appropriate EFs taken from the American Petroleum Institute Compendium. Improve the reporting on recalculations for the IPPU sector by ensuring that the information is updated and by including information on the rationale for and impact of the recalculations. Report more clearly on the questionnaires used to collect data on the consumption of halocarbons and SF 6 and on any QA/QC and verification procedures applied to the data. Include information explaining the deviation in trends (e.g. CO 2 emissions from paint application) in the NIR. Resolved. Monaco consulted with the energy provider and although that provider did not have the exact gas composition, the gas composition for southern France was provided. The ERT further notes that the initial estimates of gas composition provided by Monaco during the previous review are within the uncertainty range provided in table E-4 of the American Petroleum Institute Compendium. Resolved. A complete description of the recalculations is included in the NIR (sections and 4.2.6). Resolved. The NIR (section 4.6) contains information on QC procedures and more specific information on how the data are collected and cross-checked, as well as on how emissions are calculated and archived. Resolved. No variations were observed for this category in the latest submission. 12

13 Issue and/or problem classification a Recommendation made in previous review report ERT assessment and rationale Transparency I.4 2.F Product uses as substitutes for ozone-depleting substances PFCs (I.4, 2015) (49, 2014) (62, 2013) Transparency Include information on the trend in the use of PFCs and ensure that the information collected on PFCs is complete and, even if no emissions from manufacturing are occurring, ensure that all emissions from stock and disposal are included or an explanation for the lack of emissions is provided. Addressing. PFC emissions from stocks are now reported for the entire time series but information on the trend in the use of PFCs is not yet included. I.5 2.F.1 Refrigeration and air conditioning HFCs, PFCs and SF 6 (I.5, 2015) (48, 2014) Accuracy I.6 2.F.1 Refrigeration and air conditioning HFCs (I.8, 2015) Transparency Justify and explain the use of the product life factors. Include more details about data collection (questionnaires) for the HFC emission estimates, not only for domestic but also for all refrigeration subcategories. Resolved. The product life factors used are described in the NIR (pp.143 and 144 for mobile air conditioning and pp for other categories). For stationary air conditioning, the emissions are determined on the basis of the mass balance. Resolved. The relevant information is included in the NIR (p.136 for domestic and commercial refrigeration and stationary air conditioning, and pp for mobile air conditioning). I.7 2.F.1 Refrigeration and air conditioning HFCs (I.8, 2015) Transparency Update the NIR text for domestic refrigeration with the new equation 7.9 from the 2006 IPCC Guidelines (tier 2b methodology) used for the estimation for this category. Resolved. The new equation was included in the NIR (p.151). I.8 2.F.5 Solvents N 2O (I.6, 2015) (54, 2014) Accuracy I.9 2.G.1 Electrical equipment SF 6 (I.7, 2015) (50, 2104) Adherence to the UNFCCC Annex I inventory reporting guidelines Justify the application of the EF for aerosol cans and verify the applicability of constant emissions across the time series. Strengthen the QA/QC activities before submitting the annual inventory. Not resolved. Monaco continues to report a constant EF (6.00*10-9 t N 2O/t) and AD (13,297 cans), which is not justified in the NIR. During the review, Monaco explained that as it does not have in-country data, it has been using the methodology applied by France since its 2014 NIR: (amount of cans/population of France in 2012) multiplied by the population of Monaco in Monaco also explained that since 2012, the number of cans is constant in France despite the growing population. The ERT noted that this does not explain the constant AD applied to Monaco for the period Resolved. SF 6 emissions from electrical equipment were included in the background data CRF table, suggesting that QA/QC activities have been strengthened. I.10 2.G.3 N 2O from product uses N 2O (I.9, 2015) Transparency Reassess the QA/QC checks and procedures related to the IPPU sector, specifically focusing on the key category refrigeration and air conditioning, in order to reflect the proper descriptions of Resolved. The ERT notes that the previous recommendation, while broad, resulted from a specific concern regarding the N 2O IEF for medical applications, and the fact that the value reported in CRF table 2(I).A-Hs2 13

14 Issue and/or problem classification a Recommendation made in previous review report ERT assessment and rationale methodologies, EFs and data used for the estimation of GHG emissions for this sector. was not the one used in the calculations. In the 2017 NIR, Monaco described the method used (p.153). The method does not necessarily lead to an IEF of 1, because the method (equation 8.24 from the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, volume 3, chapter 8) covers more than one year as both supply and use are assumed to be continuous over the year; in other words, N 2O supplied in the middle of year t 1 is not fully used and emitted until the middle of year t. The ERT did not identify any problems with the Party s reporting, suggesting that QA/QC checks have been effective. Agriculture No previous recommendations were identified for this sector. LULUCF L.1 4. General (LULUCF) (L.1, 2015) (61, 2014) (74, 2013) Comparability L.2 4. General (LULUCF) (L.4, 2015) Comparability L.3 4.E.1 Settlements remaining settlements CO 2 (L.2, 2015) (63, 2014) Transparency Provide more transparent information on the calculation of emissions from the burning of biomass of green waste, to ensure the consistency of the information reported, and on the allocation of emissions and carbon stock changes between the LULUCF, waste and energy sectors. Report fully completed CRF tables and resolve the inconsistent use of the notation keys (e.g. in table 4(IV), for indirect N 2O emissions from managed soils, NO is reported instead of NE ). Provide the relevant information when applying a tier 1a method, to increase the transparency of the reporting. Addressing. Monaco continues to report NO for AD and CO 2, CH 4 and N 2O emissions from biomass burning in CRF table 4(V). Monaco provided in its NIR the total amount of woody and non-woody green waste from parks and gardens for both the energy (p.221) and the LULUCF (p.166) sectors (see L.11 in table 5 for an additional finding related to the carbon stock changes from extraction of biomass from green spaces). Addressing. Monaco has addressed the inconsistent use of notation keys in CRF tables 4.D, 4(II) and 4(III). Indirect N 2O emissions from atmospheric deposition have been estimated and are reported in CRF table 4(IV). However, the ERT notes that N leaching and run-off has been reported as NO, although minor leaching might occur and therefore should be reported as NE. Additional issues have been raised related to the use of notation keys (see s L.1 above and L.9 and L.11 in table 5). Resolved. Monaco provided information in the NIR on the tier 2a method from the 2006 IPCC Guidelines (volume 4), including equation 8.2 on the annual area of tree crown cover below and above 20 years (p.167), and specified its use of the IPCC default EF (see L.5 below). L.4 4.E.1 Settlements remaining settlements CO 2 (L.3, 2015) (65, 2014) Transparency Ensure the consistent and transparent reporting of the emission estimates and provide as much information as possible in the NIR. Resolved. Monaco has provided additional information on fertilizer application (see L.14 in table 5) and on the IPCC methodology used in the NIR (section ). 14

15 Issue and/or problem classification a Recommendation made in previous review report ERT assessment and rationale L.5 4.E.1 Settlements remaining settlements CO 2 (L.6, 2015) Transparency Increase the transparency of the reporting of carbon stock changes in biomass, providing the AD (crown cover area) used to apply equation 8.2 from the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. Resolved. Monaco has provided the AD used to apply equation 8.2 in the NIR (p.168). An additional finding has been raised related to the transparency of the calculation of the crown cover area (see L.11 in table 5). L.6 4.E.1 Settlements remaining settlements CO 2 (L.7, 2015) Transparency L.7 4.E.1 Settlements remaining settlements CO 2 (L.8, 2015) Transparency L.8 4(V) Biomass burning CO 2 (L.5, 2015) Comparability Waste W.1 5.D.1 Domestic wastewater CH 4 (W.3, 2015) Transparency KP-LULUCF Include aerial/satellite information to transparently demonstrate that any increase in biomass from growing crown cover is not a land-use change to settlements, to demonstrate that any increase in crown cover does not meet the forest definition and to improve the accuracy of the measurement of crown cover. Include the right uncertainty values for AD (an incorrect value of 50 per cent uncertainty was applied) and document the methodology by which expert judgment is used to determine uncertainty values for this category. Allocate biogenic CO 2 emissions from biomass burning for electricity to incineration and open burning of waste, in accordance with the 2006 IPCC Guidelines (volume 5, chapter 5). Improve the description of the quantification of CH 4 emissions from domestic wastewater treatment and discharge. Addressing. Monaco has included in its NIR a map of green zones and a orthophoto with the visualization of crown cover (p.165). However, an analysis of the time series of spatial information to demonstrate the area of crown cover changes reported in the table on page 168 of the NIR is lacking. Addressing. The uncertainty values have been corrected. The transparency of the Party s reporting could be increased if the expert judgment were conducted in accordance with the 2006 IPCC Guidelines (volume 1, chapter 3, section ) and documented in accordance with the protocol for expert elicitation (volume 1, chapter 2, annex 2A.1). Resolved. Monaco has reported all biogenic waste under the energy sector since all such waste is used for energy purposes. The CO 2 emissions (42.82 t CO 2 for 2015) are reported under memo items in CRF table 1s2 under energy and the notation key IE is reported in CRF table 5.C under waste, in accordance with the 2006 IPCC Guidelines (volume 5, p.5.5) (see L.11 in table 5). Resolved. The NIR contains a significantly extended methodological description with a transparent summary of the parameters used (see sections and 7.3.1). KL.1 General (KP- LULUCF) CO 2 (KL.1, 2015) Completeness Use the appropriate notation keys in the KP-LULUCF CRF tables to report on all mandatory activities under Article 3, paragraphs 3 and 4, of the Kyoto Protocol. Not resolved. Monaco left the complete set of KP-LULUCF CRF tables blank. During the review, Monaco explained that quality checks to correct mistakes in the CRF reporting are being implemented between the 2016 and 2018 submissions. a References in parentheses are to the paragraph(s) and the year(s) of the previous review report(s) where the issue and/or problem was raised. Issues are identified in accordance with paragraphs of the UNFCCC review guidelines and classified as per paragraph 81 of the same guidelines. Problems are identified and classified as problems of transparency, accuracy, consistency, completeness or comparability in accordance with paragraph 69 of the Article 8 review guidelines, in conjunction with decision 4/CMP

16 IV. Issues identified in three successive reviews and not addressed by the Party 8. In accordance with paragraph 83 of the UNFCCC review guidelines, the ERT noted that the issues included in table 4 have been identified in three successive reviews, including the review of the 2017 annual submission of Monaco, and have not been addressed by the Party. Table 4 Issues identified in three successive reviews and not addressed by Monaco General Previous recommendation for the issue identified Number of successive reviews issue not addressed a G.1 Submit all the elements of the next inventory, as required by decision 24/CP.19 G.2 Strengthen cooperation with national institutions and companies in order to increase the use of available country-specific data for the preparation of the inventory so as to develop more accurate estimates G.3 Amend the annex with information on the QA/QC and verification procedures implemented for each of the sectors G.4 Continue updating and improving the QA/QC plan with a view to improving the effectiveness of the QA/QC procedures G.5 Provide information concerning the implementation of the QA/QC plan, in particular regarding the prioritization of inventory improvements on the basis of the key category analysis and uncertainty assessment G.6 Revise the organization of the QA activities, taking into account that, in principle and in accordance with the IPCC good practice guidance, these should not be carried out by experts involved in the preparation of the inventory G.8 Report the recalculations under each category and include a clear explanation of the reasons for the recalculations made in the course of previous reviews, clearly distinguishing them from the recalculations made for the purpose of the current submission 3 ( ) 4 ( ) 3 ( ) 4 ( ) 5 ( ) 5 ( ) 3 ( ) G.10 Implement measures to strengthen the national system 4 ( ) G.11 In order to improve the national system, ensure that adequate resources are allocated to the preparation of the inventory 4 ( ) Energy E.1 Explain the difficulties with the availability of information in the NIR and try to develop methods to collect data in order to complete the reference approach E.2 Repeat the survey on international and domestic navigation on a regular basis to enhance the accuracy of the allocation of emissions between international and domestic navigation E.3 Revise the reporting of feedstocks and non-energy use of fuels in CRF table 1.A(d) in a consistent manner under the energy and industrial processes sectors and explain in the NIR the use and disposal of lubricants in the country 4 ( ) 5 ( ) 5 ( ) E.6 Make efforts to report emissions from the commercial/institutional 9 ( ) 16

17 IPPU Previous recommendation for the issue identified and residential subcategories separately Number of successive reviews issue not addressed a I.4 Include information on the trend in the use of PFCs and ensure that the information collected on PFCs is complete and, even if no emissions from manufacturing are occurring, ensure that all emissions from stock and disposal are included or an explanation for the lack of emissions is provided I.8 Justify the application of the EF for aerosol cans and verify the applicability of constant emissions across the time series 4 ( ) 3 ( ) Agriculture LULUCF No such issues for the agriculture sector were identified L.1 Provide more transparent information on the calculation of emissions from the burning of biomass of green waste, to ensure the consistency of the information reported, and on the allocation of emissions and carbon stock changes between the LULUCF, waste and energy sectors 4 ( ) Waste KP-LULUCF No such issues for the waste sector were identified No such issues for KP-LULUCF activities were identified a Monaco did not submit the NIR for the 2016 annual submission until 12 September The review of the 2016 annual submission of Monaco has not yet been conducted and therefore is not included in this table in the counting of successive reviews. V. Additional findings made during the 2017 individual inventory review 9. Table 5 contains findings made by the ERT during the individual review of the 2017 annual submission of Monaco that are additional to those identified in table 3. 17

18 18 Table 5 Additional findings made during the 2017 individual review of the annual submission of Monaco General Finding classification G.14 QA/QC and verification G.15 Key category analysis Description of the finding with recommendation or encouragement The ERT noted that Monaco s NIR does not describe changes in response to the review process as required by decision 24/CP.19, annex I, paragraph 50(i). During the review, Monaco explained that it will improve the transparency of reporting on changes in response to the review process in the next submission. The ERT recommends that Monaco provide in the NIR explanations of changes made in response to recommendations from previous reviews, including UNFCCC technical expert reviews. The ERT noted that the presentation of the key categories identified in the NIR did not follow the format of tables 4.2 and 4.3 from volume 1 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, as set out in decision 24/CP.19, annex I, paragraph 39. During the review, Monaco explained that it will use tables 4.2 and 4.3 from the 2006 IPCC Guidelines in the next submission. The ERT encourages Monaco to present the results of the key category analysis following the format of tables 4.2 and 4.3 from volume 1 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. Is finding an issue and/or a problem? a If yes, classify by type Yes. Adherence to the UNFCCC Annex I inventory reporting guidelines Not an issue/problem G.16 Uncertainty analysis The ERT noted that the reporting of uncertainties in the NIR did not consistently indicate the underlying assumptions for the purposes of helping to prioritize efforts to improve the accuracy of national inventories in the future and to guide decisions on methodological choice, as required by decision 24/CP.19, annex I, paragraphs 42 and 50(g). For example, there is no separate section in the NIR containing a discussion on uncertainty assumptions for category 1.A.3.b road transportation (a key category) and therefore no information to support the uncertainty estimates for the AD and EFs presented in annex 2 to the NIR. Lastly, Monaco does not consistently include qualitative descriptions of the uncertainty as encouraged by the UNFCCC Annex I inventory reporting guidelines (para. 15), in particular for key categories. The ERT recommends that Monaco include in the NIR explanations of the underlying assumptions used to quantify and estimate the uncertainty for all categories. Where feasible, in particular for key categories, the ERT encourages Monaco to also include qualitative discussions of uncertainty. Yes. Adherence to the UNFCCC Annex I inventory reporting guidelines G.17 National system The ERT notes that the Party is not sufficiently implementing decision 15/CMP.1 in conjunction with decision 3/CMP.11 and the annex to decision 19/CMP.1 in conjunction with decision 3/CMP.11. The 2017 NIR was submitted on 20 September 2017 and the 2016 NIR was submitted on 12 September The ERT also notes that this issue concerning the timely submission of the NIR was identified in reviews prior to 2016 (e.g. see document FCCC/ARR/2014/MCO, para. 7). In addition, the delay in the submission by Monaco has also been considered on the agenda of the Compliance Committee (see Compliance Committee documents CC/EB/25/2014/1, CC/EB/25/2014/3, CC/EB/26/2015/1, CC/EB/26/2015/2 and CC/EB/27/2015/2). In failing to submit the NIR within six weeks of the submission due date, the ERT considers that Monaco has not met the mandatory requirements in accordance with the Guidelines for the preparation of the information required under Article 7 of the Kyoto Protocol (decision 15/CMP.1 in conjunction with decision 3/CMP.11), which is one of the conditions by which a Party included in Annex I fails to meet the methodological and reporting requirements under Article 7, paragraph 1, of the Yes. Adherence to reporting guidelines under Article 7, paragraph 1, of the Kyoto Protocol

19 19 Finding classification Description of the finding with recommendation or encouragement Is finding an issue and/or a problem? a If yes, classify by type Kyoto Protocol for the purpose of the eligibility requirements under the Protocol. Furthermore, the ERT considers that the late submission under Article 7 is indicative of issues concerning the performance of the national system functions, and has identified the following specific problems: (a) Insufficient implementation of national institutional arrangements and maintenance of capacity to ensure the timely performance of the functions defined in the guidelines for national systems, as outlined in decision 19/CMP.1, annex, paragraph 10(a), (b) and (d), in conjunction with decision 3/CMP.11, specifically with respect to maintaining the necessary arrangements to ensure the technical capacity of staff involved in the inventory development process to collect data and consistently prepare national annual inventories and supplementary information. During the review, the Party informed the ERT that it could not submit information as projected in the workplan provided in response to the 2015 review owing to significant staff turnover at the national inventory agency in recent years. The loss/change in staff has reduced the inventory agency s technical capacity to manage the functions of the national system. The Party informed the ERT that a new permanent staff member will join the inventory agency in October 2017, which will help to address the agency s technical capacity constraints; (b) Insufficient implementation of inventory preparation and management procedures defined in the guidelines for national systems, as outlined in decision 19/CMP.1, annex, paragraphs 14(g) and 16(a), in conjunction with decision 3/CMP.11. With regard to paragraph 14(g), the ERT notes that, notwithstanding the delay in the submission of the 2017 NIR, the ERT was informed by the Party that the submission may not have been subject to complete QA/QC procedures, and the Party asked if it would be possible to resubmit the NIR with complete QC after the review. During the review, in response to questions raised by the ERT regarding the provision of evidence of the implementation of general QC procedures consistent with paragraph 16(a), the Party explained that the information is being improved and that it was unable to share an updated copy of the information with the ERT during the review week. The ERT concludes that, on the basis of the information provided in the NIR and during the review, the national system of Monaco does not sufficiently meet the requirements outlined in decision 19/CMP.1, in conjunction with decision 3/CMP.11. In particular, the ERT considers that the national system of Monaco is not performing the general functions defined in decision 19/CMP.1, annex, paragraphs 10(a), (b) and (d), 14(g) and 16(a), in conjunction with decision 3/CMP.11. The ERT included this issue in the list of potential problems and further questions raised by the ERT and recommended that Monaco implement the necessary improvements to the functions of the national system and provide to the ERT: (a) A description (e.g. a table, list or diagram with narrative) of the national institutional arrangements, indicating the roles or allocation of responsibilities among the inventory agency staff in implementing the functions of the national inventory system, including the preparation and management of the inventory development process. The summary should describe how the Party will maintain sufficient arrangements and technical capacity to ensure the continuous and timely performance of the national system functions, and increase the resilience of the national system functions as outlined in decision 19/CMP.1, annex, paragraph 10(a) and (b), in conjunction with decision 3/CMP.11; (b) An inventory preparation plan and schedule indicating actions and deadlines to prepare the inventory and supplementary