unfccc.int · Web viewQuality assurance/quality control: includes issues related to implementation of overall QA/QC procedures and/or development of the QA/QC plan. Generally, this

United Nations FCCC/ARR/2016/[ISO code]

Distr.: General28 December 2016

English only

Report on the individual review of the inventory submission of [Party] submitted in 2016*

Note by the expert review team

SummaryEach 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). This report presents the results of the individual inventory review of the 2016 inventory submission of [Party], conducted by an expert review team in accordance with the “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.” The review took place from [date] to [date month year] in [City], [Country].

I.

* * In the symbol for this document, 2016 refers to the year in which the inventory was submitted, and not to the year of publication.

FCCC/ARR/2016/[ISO code]

Instructions for Completing the ARR

Statement submitted by Party on the final report

This space is for use by the Party and is not to be completed by the expert review team (ERT). It is provided specifically for the inclusion of a written comment by the Party in response to para. 57 to the annex of decision 13/CP.20, but may also be used to fulfil paragraphs 66 and 90(e) of the annex to de-cision 13/CP.20 as well. If a Party provides comment to the ERT in accordance with paragraph 73 of the annex to decision 13/CP.20, this should be reflected in table 5, along with the corresponding discus-sion. If the Party does not want to include a statement on the final report, this section should be deleted prior to publication.

Section I. Introduction Para.1/ Table 1: The secretariat will pre-fill the details of the review, including dates of the review.

Paras. 2 – 5: The secretariat will pre-fill the information in these paragraphs, as well as the data to be provided in tables 6, 7 and 8. As the report is ultimately the responsibility of the ERT, please ensure that you review the data inserted in these tables for accuracy and completeness. Also note that if the Party submits revised estimates during the review process, the data tables may have to be updated.

Section II. Summary and general assessment of the inventory submission (ARR table 2) Table 2 is to be completed by the ERT during the review week. The secretariat will pre-fill factual in-formation (e.g. date(s) of submission and review format). Please note that as you complete table 2 you may not include all issues related to transparency, accuracy, consistency and comparability identified in tables 3 and 5. For example, many issues related exlusively to transparency or consistency between the CRF tables and the NIR may not be included in table 2, unless they are related to one of the components listed under “Application of the requirements of the UNFCCC Annex I inventory reporting guidelines and Wetlands Supplement (if applicable)”.

Most rows in Table 2 are self-explanatory from the review guidelines. Additional guidance for the table is as follows:

Review format: The secretariat will pre-fill the “format of review.” If a Party is subject to a desk re-view, ERT’s should refer to the guidance in para. 76 of the annex to decision 13/CP.20 in terms of the priorities the ERT should consider during the review (e.g. categories and issues to focus on). Note that the guidelines only reference what the ERT “shall prioritize”. Assuming that the ERT does appropri-ately prioritize the information as referenced in paragraph 76, this would not exclude an ERT from identifying an issue outside this scope.

Application of the requirements of the UNFCCC Annex I inventory reporting guidelines and Wetlands Supplement (if applicable). This section is to be completed during the review week. For each sub-bullet, you should select “yes” or “no” from the drop down menu regarding whether any issues were identified for each area listed. Include in the last column a reference to the proper ID# below that explains the issue more fully. For example, if you include an issue in table 5 that the Party has calcu-lated an emission factor (EF) for agricultural soils incorrectly, this should be reflected in Table 2. You would select “Yes” in table 2 next to “collection and selection of emission factors” (because an issue has been identified related to this topic) and then in the last column include the proper reference (e.g. A.17) where the issue is more fully described. No other choice is available but “yes” or “no” for con-sistency across Parties. It is important that only issues (not findings) are considered and cross-refer-enced in this section.

Use your discretion in how to characterize the issues, but below is some general guidance to promote consistency:

2


• Identification of key categories: includes issues related to the development and reporting of the key category analysis (KCA) (e.g., approach used or level of disaggregation of the KCA). Issues related to use of lower-tier methods for key categories may be more appropriate under “selection and use of methodologies and assumptions”.

• Selection and use of methodologies and assumptions: includes issues related to the choice of an incorrect IPCC method; or incorrect implementation of a given method or assumptions. Because the methods in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines include descriptions of where emissions should be reported, this section may also include issues related to comparability (e.g., the Party is reporting following a different allocation than is expected from the 2006 IPCC Guidelines).

• Development and selection of emission factors: includes issues related to the development and selection of EFs, including issues related to the continued applicability of older EFs.

• Collection and selection of activity data (AD): includes issues related to the collection and se-lection of AD . If the issue is related to the completeness of AD, it may be better placed under missing categories/completeness.

• Reporting of recalculations: includes issues related to the quantitative and qualitative reporting of information on recalculations.

• Reporting of a consistent time series: includes issues related to inconsistent time series and methods applied by the Party to ensure time series consistency.

• Reporting of uncertainties, including methodologies: includes issues related to the uncertainty analysis, including the approach, methods and assumptions, at both the inventory and the category level.

• Quality assurance/quality control: includes issues related to implementation of overall QA/QC procedures and/or development of the QA/QC plan. Generally, this section should not include refer-ences to inconsistencies identified between the CRF tables and the NIR, except to the extent the ERT determines that these issues stem from larger problems with the Party’s QA/QC system.

• Missing categories/completeness: includes issues related to lack of reporting, or lack of com-plete reporting, for categories for which there are methods included in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. If you find an issue regarding provision of information for a category that the Party reports as “insignificant” this should be included under “significance threshold and is generally not considered an issue of com-pleteness. All categories that may affect completeness should be listed in Annex II.

Corrections: GHG inventories should be reported without corrections (e.g. related to climate variations or electricity trade). If the inventory is reported without corrections, select “No” (because no issues were identified). If the inventory was reported with corrections, select “Yes” and discussion of this issue in table 3 or table 5, as appropriate.

Significance threshold. If a Party reports “NE” and references that the category is insignificant in ac-cordance with decision 24/CP.19, annex, paragraph 37(b), the ERT must assess whether sufficient in-formation has been reported to justify such reporting. In making this assessment, the ERT must consider the requirements (i.e. “shalls”) in paragraph 37(b). Specifically, has the Party indicated in both the NIR and the CRF tables why such emissions were not estimated? Has the Party demonstrated that the emis -sions for a specific category do not exceed 500 kt/CO2 eq and collectively, the total emissions for all categories excluded from the inventory do not exceed 0.1 percent of national total GHG emissions (i.e., total GHG emissions excluding LULUCF and including indirect CO2 if the Party decided to report this). If this information is not provided for all categories reported as insignificant, or the information provided does not adequately support the exclusion of the categories, the ERT should assess “No”.

National inventory arrangements: Consult the functions of the national inventory arrangements out-lined in paragraphs 23 to 27 of the annex to decision 24/CP.19 in making your assessment. As stated in the chapeau, the ERT is assessing whether any issues have been identified, so the ERT should select either ‘Yes” or “No”. “Generally” is not an appropriate response to such a question. During a desk re-view, the review of the national inventory arrangements may not be considered one of the priorities of the review, however you may still elect to review them. If you review the national inventory arrange-

3


ments in a desk review review select ‘Yes” or “No,” as appropriate. If, during a desk review, the na-tional system is not reviewed, “No” is the appropriate response.

Response from the Party during the review. At any stage in the review process, the ERTs may put questions to, or request additional or clarifying information from, the Annex I Parties under review re-garding identified issues. Here the ERT should provide an assessment regarding the responsiveness of the Party in facilitating the conduct of the review.

Recommendation for an exceptional in-country review. According to para. 64 of 13/CP.20, “The ERT, based on the findings of the review, can recommend that the next review be an in-country review. The ERT shall provide in the review report a rationale for the additional in-country review as well as a list of questions and issues to be addressed during the in-country review. The in-country review shall then be scheduled for the year following the review that recommended such a visit.”. If you recommend an exceptional ICR, you must provide in the ARR a rationale for the additional in–country review as well as a list of questions and issues to be addressed during the ICR. The ICR is then scheduled for the next review. If you recommend an exceptional ICR based on the current review, select “yes” here and include the bracketed text, as well as a list of questions in Annex II.

If you do not recommend an exceptional ICR select “No” and delete the related section from Annex II.

Section III. Guidance for completing ARR table 3The review guidelines require tracking of the implementation of previous review recommendations. The secretariat will review the previous review report and pre-fill in table 3 all recommendations from that report, completing column 3. The secretariat will also provide preliminary input to the number of suc-cessive reviews in which the same issue was raised, completing in column 2 the category name and the years/references where the issue was previously raised. It is the ERT’s role to review and confirm all in-formation pre-filled in table 3, assess whether each recommendation has been resolved, and to provide a rationale for its assessment of the issue.

Please check or complete the following:

ID#: This table should list all findings sequentially using the structure G.1, E.1, I.1, A.1., L.1, W.1 for each sector, respectively.

Select the proper IPCC category from the drop down menu (column 2). You will also need to manu-ally enter the fuels (energy sector) and the gas(es) (all sectors);

The numbers in parentheses represent the paragraph (or in later years the issue number) from the previous review report(s), and the year reflects the year of the ARR in which the recommend-ation appeared. So, for example, if general issue #1 (i.e. G.1) in the pre-filled 2016 ARR first ap-peared in the 2014 ARR (paragraph #11) and the 2015 ARR (ID.# G.5) it would read as (G.5, 2015)(11, 2014). This way, ERTs can track back to find the original recommendation, and easily see the number of years in which the recommendation was subsequently reiterated.

Select the “issue type”. Issue types are taken from the criteria listed in paragraph 81of the annex to de-cision 13/CP.20. You should select one of the following: transparency, accuracy, consistency, complete-ness, comparability and adherence to the UNFCCC Annex I inventory reporting guidelines. In selecting the issue type, consider the requirements and definitions in the UNFCCC Annex I inventory reporting guidelines.

Confirm the accuracy, completeness and clarity of the recommendations made in the previous re-view report

Provide the ERT assessment and rationale: You should assess whether the issue has been resolved, and provide a rationale for your assessment. Please select from the following:

Resolved: the Party fully implemented the recommendation; Not resolved: the Party did not implement the recommendation and has not taken any action to

address it; Addressing: the Party has made sufficient progress in resolving the recommendation;

4


Not relevant: this recommendation is no longer relevant. This may be because of the changes due to the new UNFCCC Annex I inventory reporting guidelines. In some cases you may believe that the previous recommendation was incorrect. You should not indicate in this report that the recommendation made in the previous review report was wrong, rather you should focus on why this is not an issue given the new reporting guidelines.

Please be specific on the rationale for your assessment of the issue to help the Party and future ERTs understand what the current ERT expects to be done to address the issue. It may not always be clear what the most appropriate assessment is, particularly between a status of “not resolved” and “address-ing.” You should make an expert assessment given the nature of the issue and the actions taken by the Party.

FAQs

When is an issue “resolved?” You should focus on the fundamental issue in a recommendation and if it has been fully implemented, then it is resolved. For example, if the Party updates the EF as recom -mended by an ERT, but does not adequately describe what was done in the NIR and that was not expli-citly requested by the ERT, the issue is resolved, but you may decide that there is a new transparency is-sue. If you find yourself answering the question, “is it resolved” with a “yes, but it could have been done [better][differently]”then the issue should be marked as “resolved” and a new issue started in ARR table 5 (perhaps with a cross reference linking back to the original issue in ARR table 3). For transpar -ency issues, the issue should not be considered “resolved “by information provided to the ERT during the review week, but only by its inclusion in the NIR. In addition, plans to solve the issue in the next or future submissions should not result in the issue being considered ‘resolved’.

The previous recommendation was very general or not realistic to implement. I see improve-ments, but there are still problems, what should I do? Some recommendations, particularly in earlier years, were general (e.g., improve transparency or improve QA/QC procedures). Or, they may be diffi-cult to ever fully address (e.g., recommendations to ensure that there are no inconsistencies between the NIR and CRF tables). The ERT may consider looking at the recommendation closely to see if the Party has done anything to address the general recommendation (e.g. transparency was improved, but only in two sectors, or the specific inconsistencies between the NIR/CRF tables mentioned in the previous re-

5

What is unique for the 2016 review?

The 2015 and 2016 reviews are happening in conjunction with each other for most Annex I Parties. For the 4 Parties reviewed during 2015 (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Ukraine), table 3 in the 2016 ARR will be completed in a similar manner to what was done in the 2015 ARR, specifically, the issues from table 3 listed as “not resolved” or “addressing” in t he2015 ARR and the recommendations from table 5 of the 2015 ARR will be included in table 3 of the 2016 ARR. You will assess the status of implementation of these recommendations in the 2016 inventory submission.

For those Parties not reviewed in 2015, but subject to an individual inventory review in 2014, ARR table 3 in both the 2015 and 2016 ARRs will be identical for columns 1 – 3, and reflect the recommendations included in the 2014 ARR for the respective Party. In the 2016 ARR, you will assess whether the issue has been resolved in the 2016 inventory submission. Further, since the 2015 inventory submission was not yet subject to a review, the year 2015 is to be excluded from the column“issue classification”, as the Party will not have had a chance to respond to the 2015 review report.

For the United States, a Convention Party that was not subject to an individual inventory review in 2014 or 2015, columns 1–3 will be identical in the 2015 and 2016 ARRs, but table 3 will be populated with the recommendations from the 2013 ARR.


view report were fixed). If the some improvements were made, and it is within the scope of the previous recommendation, the ERT could consider listing the issue as “resolved” (because improvements were made), but opening a new issue in table 5 that is more specific.

The previous review report contained the same issue twice, for example in the sector overview or general section, as well as in the sector specific chapters. Should this issue be included twice in Table 3? When the secretariat pre-fills ARR table 3, it will include all recommendations listed in the previous review report, listing twice issues that were included twice in the previous review report. In re -viewing the secretariat’s pre-filling of ARR table 3, the ERT may elect to include the issue itself in table 3 only once (for example, it could list the issue under the sectoral chapter, referencing both para. X and para. X of the previous review report).

Under issue type, multiple classifications could apply. Which should I select? Select the classifica-tion that is most appropriate for the issue identified (transparency, accuracy, completeness, consistency, comparability). There are relatively limited cases where “Adherence to the UNFCCC Reporting Guidelines” would apply and it is meant to capture issues not classified under the main headings. Some examples of issues falling under this heading might be issues of transparency, consistency between the NIR and CRF tables, and reporting of the inventory with corrections.

Section IV. Guidance for completing Table 4This section highlights any issues identified in accordance with paragraph 83 of decision 13/CP.20:

83. The ERT will identify issues, in particular those relating to accuracy and completeness for key categories as described in paragraph 73 above, missing categories as described in paragraph 75(d) above, or potential key categories as identified by the ERT and that could not be clarified with the Party during the review week. In the case where, after such an issue has been identified in three successive reviews, in accordance with paragraphs 75(f) and 76(a) above, and has not been addressed by the Party, the ERT will include a prominent paragraph in the review report noting the issue, the number of successive reviews in which the Party has been notified of the issue, and that the Party has not addressed the issue.

Please check or complete the following:

ID#: Copy the relevant ID # from table 3. Include an asterisk after any issue ID# where the underlying issue is related to accuracy or completeness of a key category, a missing category or a potential key cat -egory, as indicated in decision 13/CP.20, annex, paragraph 83;

Previous recommendation for the issue identified: Generally, you should include all recommenda-tions included in table 3 that have been included in at least the last two inventory review reports and have the status “not resolved” or “addressing” in the current review report. However, the ERT may ex-ercise some discretion in elevating issues to table 4, taking into account paras. 75(f) and 76(a) of de-cision 13/CP.20. Further, the LRs in their conclusions from the 13th annual meeting elaborated in paras. 29 and 32(b) that ERTs have some discretion as to whether to include a specific issue in Table 4 and should communicate with the Party when assessing whether sufficient progress has been made in the implementation of previous recommendations for the purposes of including the issue in a prominent paragraph.

If no issue is identified for a particular sector, insert “No such issues for the X sector were identified”

Number of successive reviews issue not addressed. In the third column insert the number of years identified in table 3 plus the current year, and include reference to the actual years (e.g. 3 (2013– 2015)).

FAQs

6


Are all issues labelled as “not resolved” or “addressing” to be included in Table 4? No, not neces-sarily. According to the conclusions of the 13th Meeting of Lead Reviewers, “ERTs have some discre-tion as to whether to include a specific issue in Table 4 and should communicate with the Party when assessing whether sufficient progress has been made in the implementation of previous recommenda-tions for the purposes of including the issue in a prominent paragraph.” You should discuss with the Party the national circumstances with respect to the recommendation, and based on your expert assess-ment, determine whether the issue should be included in table 4.

If, during the third successive review, an issue has been “resolved” but not addressed through an official submission, should it be in table 4? Yes. An issue may be resolved during the third review through a submission of revised CRF tables, for example. In this case, the ERT may consider the issue resolved and not include it in table 4. If the issue is one of transparency in the NIR, in order for the issue to be “resolved”, there would need to be a resubmission of the NIR. It may be that the Party provided the necessary information during the review week, but decided not to resubmit the NIR. Assuming that the NIR is not officially resubmitted, this issue should be included in table 4.

The decision says “and has not been addressed by the Party”. If a Party has a plan for implement-ing the recommendation, is this recommendation “addressed” for the purposes of counting three successive reviews? It depends. This will be a judgment by the ERT. Taking into consideration the nature of the issue and the national circumstances of the Party, you should consider the plan and whether it is appropriate for addressing the recommendation in a timely manner. For example, you might consider that a recommendation to conduct a study or collect data to generate a new country-spe -cific EF would likely require more time than a recommendation to improve the transparency of the NIR. As noted above, you have some discretion to determine which issues should be included in table 4.

Section V. Guidance for completing table 5Table 5 contains any new findings by the ERT during the current review cycle (related to both recom -mendations (i.e. issues) and encouragements (i.e. findings not related to issues). A single finding (re -commendation or encouragement) should be given its own row.

You should provide the following information for each finding:

ID#: This table should list all findings sequentially using the same ID structure from table 3, and begin-ning where the numbering in table 3 left off. In the end, all findings in the review report related to previ-ous recommendations (table 3) and new findings (table 5) will have a unique ID#;

Finding classification: Select the IPCC category from a drop down menu. You will need to manually enter the fuels (energy sector) and the gas(es) (all sectors)

7


For the 4 Parties reviewed during 2015 (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Ukraine), table 4 in the 2016ARR will be completed in a similar manner to what was done in the 2015 ARR.

For those Parties not reviewed in 2015, the review of the 2015 and 2016 inventory submissions are not “successive” reviews, but are rather being held in conjunction with each other. Therefore, for the purpose of counting successive years in table 4, 2015/2016 are considered as one year. Issues to be included in table 4 will be those that were identified, at a minimum, in the 2013, 2014 and 2015/2016 review reports. Table 4 for these Parties will be the same in both the 2015 and 2016 inventory submissions, with the exception that the 2016 report will include the year 2015/2016 instead of just 2015.

In addition, the United States was not subject to an individual inventory review in 2014. For this Party, the three successive reviews, for the purposes of populating Table 4 are 2012, 2013 and 2015/2016.


Description of finding with recommendation or encouragement: include here two paragraphs. The first paragraph should include a description of the finding identified by the ERT, the communications between the ERT and the Party during the review, and the rationale for why the ERT concludes that what the Party is doing is inconsistent with the UNFCCC Annex I inventory reporting guidelines or what could be improved. The second paragraph should include the specific encouragement or recom-mendation. The ERT should “encourage” the Party to address findings that are not related to an issue, as defined in paragraph 81 of the annex to decision 13/CP.20. For issues, the ERT should include a “re-commendation”. For recommendations, be as specific and concise as possible regarding what the Party needs to do to resolve the issue, and ensure that the recommendation can stand on its own in the report.

Please note that in subsequent years only the recommendation, not the full description of the issue, will appear in the report (in table 3). In the subsequent ARR, all encouragements will remain in table 5, in their entirety, for consideration by the next ERT, in line with the conclusions of the 13 th meeting of LRs that findings of a non-mandatory nature are important and should be reflected in the ARR and the re-view transcript (para. 31).

Is finding related to an issue? If the finding is related to an issue, as identified in paragraph 81 of the annex to decision 13/CP.20, please select “yes” and indicate whether this is primarily an issue of trans-parency, accuracy, consistency, comparability, completeness or adherence to the UNFCCC Annex I in-ventory reporting guidelines. If the finding is not related to an issue, select “Not an isuse”.

Encouragement for use of the wetlands supplement: The standardized text included in the template should be included any time there is a recommendation or encouragement in the review report related to wetlands (assuming that the Party is not already using the Wetlands Supplement for the issue in ques-tion). This standard language has been added to fulfil para.4 of decision 24/CP.19. Findings related to the use of the wetlands supplement should not be considered an issue, so in the final column you would select “Not an issue”.

FAQs

How should I draft the recommendation? ERT’s should be mindful of the “three successive reviews” rule when drafting recommendations. Recommendations need to be concrete and concise so that it is ab-solutely clear what is expected of the Party. The ERTs may also want to consider structuring recom-mendations so that they are implementable – e.g. do X by the next submission, do Y by [year] submis -sion.

How do I distinguish between a recommendation and an encouragement? Decision 13/CP.20 does not define a “recommendation” or an “encouragement”, however, it does indicate that ERTs will identify issues, as defined in paragraph 81 of the annex to decision 13/CP.20. All issues identified by the ERT should lead to a recommendation. Any additional finding not related to an issue, lead to an en -couragement. With respect to transparency, findings related to transparency generally become an issue if there is a basis for it in the 2006 IPCC GL.

Should an ERT include “strong recommendations”? No. ERT’s should not use “strong recommend-ations”. Although this has been used in the past, it has not been done consistently. There is no distinc -tion in decision 13/CP.20 regarding recommendations and strong recommendations. Further, 13/CP.20 already introduces an approach to elevate certain issues (para. 83 of the annex requires ERT’s to include an issue in a separate prominent paragraph of the report if it has not been addressed in three consecutive reviews).

Can I include a commendation to the Party in table 5? Yes, you can enter a commendation to the Party in a separate row of Table 5. The last column would indicate “Not an issue”.

8


Section VI. Annexes Annex I: Overview of greenhouse gas emissions and removals for Party for submission year Year The base year to be included in tables 6-8 are the respective base year for the Party, as contained in decision 24/CP.19, annex, paragraph 8 through the latest reported year (this is generally the current year minus 2, so if the current year of the review is 2015, then the year for inclusion in the table is 2013).

Annex II. Additional information to support findings in table 2. Section A “Missing categories that affect completeness” should list those missing cateories that may affect the completeness of the submission. The only categories that can affect completeness, and therefore should be included in this annex, are categories for which methods are provided in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. In addition, if there are such categories that the Party has not reported, but the Party has sufficiently justified that the category is insignificant, in accordance with paragraph 37(b) of the annex to decision 24/CP.19, these categories should not be included in this list as possible issues of completeness.

Section B “Recommendation for an in-country review: list of issues” should only be included for those Parties for which it is recommended that the subsequent year review be conducted as an in-country review. If no such recommendation is made, then Section B should be deleted.

9


The fact that the review of the 2015 and 2016 inventory submissions are happening in conjunction with each other does not have any implications for the completion of table 5 in 2016. Further, the 5 Parties not subject to an individual inventory review in 2014 or 2015 require no specific modifications for Table 5. In all cases, table 5 should be completed as described above.


[Statement submitted by [Party]on the final report][Delete this section if no comment from Party]

Comment by [Party]

10


ContentsParagraphs Page

I. Introduction – 12II. Summary and general assessment of the [year] inventory submission.................... – 13

III. Status of implementation of issues raised in the previous review report................. 15

IV. Issues identified in three successive reviews and not addressed by the Party......... 21

V. Additional findings made during the [year] technical review.................................. 23

Annexes

I. Overview of greenhouse gas emissions and removals for Party for submission year [Year]...........] 28

II. Additional information to support findings in table 2....................................................................... 31

III. Documents and information used during the review......................................................................... 32

IV. Acronyms and abbreviations............................................................................................................. 34

11


I. Introduction

1. This report covers the review of the [year] inventory submission of [Party] organized by the UNFCCC secretariat, in accordance with the “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” (hereinafter referred to as the UNFCCC review guidelines) and particularly part III, “UNFCCC guidelines for the technical review of greenhouse gas inventories from Parties included in Annex I to the Convention”.1 The review took place from [date] to [date] [month] [year] in [City,] [Country], and was coordinated by [Mr.][Ms.] [Review Officer] (UNFCCC secretariat). Table 1 provides information on the composition of the expert review team (ERT) that conducted the review of [Party].

Table 1Composition of the expert review team that conducted the review of [Party]

Area of expertise Name Party

Generalist [Mr.][Ms.] [Name] [Surname]

[Mr.][Ms.] [Name] [Surname]

Energy [Mr.][Ms.] [Name] [Surname]



IPPU [Mr.][Ms.] [Name] [Surname]


Agriculture [Mr.][Ms.] [Name] [Surname]


LULUCF [Mr.][Ms.] [Name] [Surname]



Waste [Mr.][Ms.] [Name] [Surname]



Lead reviewers [Mr.][Ms.] [Name] [Surname]


Abbreviations: IPPU = industrial processes and product use, LULUCF = land use, land-use change and forestry.

2. This report contains findings based on the assessment by the ERT of the [year] inventory submission against the UNFCCC review guidelines. The ERT has made

1 Annex to decision 13/CP.20.

12


recommendations to resolve those findings related to issues.2 Other findings, and if applicable, the ERTs encouragements to resolve them, are also included.

3. A draft version of this report was communicated to the Government of [Party] which [provided no comments] [provided comments that were considered and incorporated, as appropriate, into this final version of the report].

4. An overview of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reported under the Convention for [Party] is provided in annex I; table 6 shows GHG emissions with and without indirect CO2 emissions for selected years, and tables 7 and 8 show GHG emissions reported under the Convention by gas and by sector, respectively.

5. [The ERT notes that [Party’s] 2015 inventory submission was delayed, consistent with decision 24/CP.19, paragraph 3 and decision 13/CP.20, paragraph 13. As a result, the review of the 2016 inventory submission is being held in conjuction with the review of the 2015 GHG inventory submission, in accordance with decision 20/CP.21, paragraph 1. To the extent that identical information is presented in both inventory submissions, the ERT has reviewed this information only once and, as appropriate, has replicated the findings below in both the 2015 and the 2016 annual review report.]

II. Summary and general assessment of the [year] inventory submission

6. Table 2 provides the ERT assessment of the inventory 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 below.

Table 2Summary of review results and general assessment of the inventory of [Party]a

AssesssmentIssue ID number(s) in tables 3 and/or 5a

Date[s] of submission

Original submission: [X Month Year] (NIR), [X Month Year], [Version number] (CRF tables)

[Revised submission[s]: [X Month Year] (NIR), [X Month Year], [Version number] (CRF tables)

The values from the latest submission are used in this report

Review format [In-country ][Centralized ][Desk review]

Application of the requirements of the UNFCCC Annex I inventory reporting guidelines and Wetlands Supplement (if applicable)

Have any issues been identified in the following areas:

1. Identification of key categories [Yes][No]

2. Selection and use of methodologies and assumptions

[Yes][No]

3. Development and selection of emission factors [Yes][No]

4. Collection and selection of activity data [Yes][No]

5. Reporting of recalculations [Yes][No]

2 Issues are defined in decision 13/CP.20, annex, paragraph 81.

13


AssesssmentIssue ID number(s) in tables 3 and/or 5a

6. Reporting of a consistent time series [Yes][No]

7. Reporting of uncertainties, including methodologies

[Yes][No]

8. Quality assurance/quality control [Yes][No]

9. Missing categories/completenessb [Yes][No]

10. Application of corrections to the inventory [Yes][No]

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?

[The Party did not report “NE” for any insignificant categories]

[Yes]

[No]

Description of trends

Did the ERT conclude that the description in the NIR of the trends for the different gases and sectors is reasonable?

[Yes][No]

National inventory arrangements

Have any issues been identified with the effectiveness and reliability of the institutional, procedural and legal arrangements for estimating GHG emissions [,including the changes to the national inventory arrangements since the previous annual submission.]

[Yes][No]

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?

[Yes][Generally] [No]

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?

Guidance: if yes, include the following language: [Please refer to annex II for a list of questions and issues to be considered during this in-country review]

[Yes][No]

Abbreviations: CRF = common reporting format, ERT = expert review team, GHG = greenhouse gas, IPPU = industrial processes and product use, LULUCF = land use, land-use change and forestry, [NE = not estimated], NIR = national inventory report, UNFCCC Annex I inventory reporting guidelines = “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”.

a The ERT identified additional issues in the [insert sector name] sector[s] that are not specifically listed in table 2 but are included in table 3 and/or 5.

b Missing categories, for which methods are provided in the 2006 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, may affect completeness and are listed in annex II to this document.

14


III. Status of implementation of issues raised in the previous review report

11. Table 3 compiles all the recommendations made in the previous review report. [Owing to the unique circumstances of the 2015 inventory submission,as described in paragraph 5 above, [and the fact that [Party] was not subject to an individual inventory review of its 2014 inventory submission], the latest available review report was for the review of the [2014][2013] inventory submission, published on [X Month Year]. For each issue, the ERT specified whether it believes the issue has been resolved by the conclusion of the review of the [year] inventory submission and provided the rationale for its determination, taking into consideration the publication date of the previous review report and national circumstances.

Table 3Status of implementation of issues raised in the previous review report of [Party]

ID# Issue classificationa Recommendation made in previous review report[b] ERT assessment and rationale

General

G.1 Select category([x, year]) ([x, year])Issue type

[Resolved.][Not resolved.] [Addressing.][No longer rel-evant Please include rationale

G.2 Select category([x, year]) ([x, year])Issue type


Energy

E.1 Select category – Add fuels–Add gas(es)([x, year]) ([x, year])Issue type








E.5 Select category – [Resolved.][Not resolved.]

15



Add fuels–Add gas(es)([x, year]) ([x, year])Issue type

[Addressing.][No longer rel-evant Please include rationale















IPPU

I.1 Select category – Add gas(es)([x, year]) ([x, year])Issue type


16























17





Agriculture

A.1 Select category – Add gas(es)([x, year]) ([x, year])Issue type


















A.10 Select category – Add gas(es)

[Resolved.][Not resolved.] [Addressing.][No longer rel-

18



([x, year]) ([x, year])Issue type

evant Please include rationale

LULUCF

L.1 Select category – Add gas(es)([x, year]) ([x, year])Issue type




















19





Waste

W.1 Select categoryAdd gas(es)([x, year]) ([x, year])Issue type


















W.10 Select categoryAdd gas(es)

[Resolved.][Not resolved.] [Addressing.][No longer rel-

20



([x, year]) ([x, year])Issue type

evant Please include rationale

Abbreviations: [CRF = common reporting format,] ERT = expert review team, [,] IPPU = industrial processes and product use, LULUCF = land use, land-use change and forestry, [NEU = non energy use][, NIR = national inventory report][,][, UNFCCC Annex I inventory reporting guidelines = “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”].

a References in parentheses are to the paragraph(s) and the year(s) of the previous review report(s) where the issue was raised. Issues are further classified as defined in decision 13/CP.20, annex, paragraph 81.

b [For [Party], the review of the 2016 inventory submission is being held in conjunction with the review of the 2015 inventory submission, and as such, the 2015 annual review report was not available at the time of this review. [In addition, [Party] was also not subject to an individual inventory review in 2014.] Therefore, the recommendations reflected in table 3 are from the [2013][2014] annual review report. For the same reason, the year[s] [2014 and] 2015 [is][are] excluded from the list of years in which the issue has been identified.]

IV. Issues identified in three successive reviews and not addressed by the Party

12. [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 year inventory submission of [Party], and have not been addressed by the Party.] [In accordance with paragraph 83 of the UNFCCC review guidelines, and as documented in table 4 below, the ERT has assessed that there are no issues to be included in a prominent paragraph.]

Table 4Issues identified in three successive reviews and not addressed by [Party]

ID#a Previous recommendation for the issue identifiedNumber of successive reviews issue not addressed[b]

General

[No such general issues were identified] [No. years] ([X–Y])

Energy

[No such issues for the energy sector were identified] [No. years] ([X–Y])

[No. years] ([X–Y])

IPPU

[No such issues for the IPPU sector were identified] [No. years] ([X–Y])


Agriculture

[No such issues for the agriculture sector were identified] [No. years] ([X–Y])


LULUCF

21


[No such issues for the LULUCF sector were identified] [No. years] ([X–Y])


Waste

[No such issues for the waste sector were identified] [No. years] ([X–Y])


Abbreviations: IPPU = industrial processes and product use, LULUCF = land use, land-use change and forestry. a An asterisk is included after any issue ID# where the underlying issue is related to accuracy or completeness of a key

category, a missing category or a potential key category, as indicated in decision 13/CP.20, annex, paragraph 83. b [For [Party], the review of the 2016 inventory submission is being held in conjunction with the review of the 2015 inventory

submission. Since the reviews of the 2015 and 2016 inventory submissions are not “successive” reviews, but are rather being held in conjunction, for the purpose of counting successive years in table 4, 2015/2016 are considered as one year. [In addition, [Party], was also not subject to an individual inventory review in 2014. Therefore, 2014 is excluded from this table.] The ERT noted that this table 4 is the same as appears in the 2015 ARR for [Party], modified to reflect the combined 2015/2016 review.]

.

22

FCC

C/A

RR

/2016/[ISO code]

23

V. Additional findings made during the [year] technical review

13. Table 5 contains findings made by the ERT during the technical review of the [year] inventory submission of [Party] that are additional to those identified in table 3 above.

Table 5Additional findings made during the [year] technical review of the inventory submission of [Party]

ID# Finding classification Description of the finding with recommendation or encouragementIs finding an issuea? If yes, classify by type

General

G.3 Select category Issue type






Energy

E.13 Select category – Add fuels – Add

Issue type

FCC

C/A

RR

/2016/[ISO code]

24


gas(es)

E.14 Select category – Add fuels – Add gas(es)

Issue type


Issue type


Issue type


Issue type


Issue type


Issue type


Issue type


Issue type


Issue type

E.23 Select category – Add fuels – Add

Issue type

FCC

C/A

RR

/2016/[ISO code]

25


gas(es)


Issue type

IPPU

I.13 Select category – Add gas(es)

Issue type


Issue type


Issue type


Issue type


Issue type


Issue type


Issue type


Issue type


Issue type

Agriculture

A.11 Select category –Add gas(es)

Issue type

A.12 Select category – Issue type

FCC

C/A

RR

/2016/[ISO code]

26


Add gas(es)


Issue type


Issue type


Issue type


Issue type


Issue type


Issue type


Issue type


Issue type


Issue type


Issue type

LULUCF

L.12 Select categoryAdd gas(es)

Standard text to be added for any issues identified in relation to wetlands: [The ERT encourages the Party to use the Wetlands Supplement in preparing its annual inventories for [X] in future annual submissions]

Issue type


Issue type

FCC

C/A

RR

/2016/[ISO code]

27



Issue type


Issue type


Issue type


Issue type


Issue type


Issue type


Issue type


Issue type


Issue type


Issue type


Issue type

Waste

W.11 Select category –Add gas(es)

Issue type


Issue type

FCC

C/A

RR

/2016/[ISO code]

28



Issue type


Issue type


Issue type


Issue type


Issue type


Issue type


Issue type


Issue type

Abbreviations: [CRF = common reporting format,] ERT = expert review team, [IPCC = Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change], IPPU = industrial processes and product use, LULUCF = land use, land-use change and forestry, [NIR = national inventory report,] [QA/QA = quality assurance/quality control,] UNFCCC Annex I inventory reporting guidelines = “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”][, Wetlands Supplement = 2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands][, 2006 IPCC Guidelines = 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories].

a Recommendations are related to issues as defined in decision 13/CP.20, annex, paragraph 81, identified by the ERT during the review. Encouragements are made to the Party to address all findings not related to such issues.


Annex I

Overview of greenhouse gas emissions and removals for [Party] for submission year [year]

1. Table 6 shows total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, including and excluding land use, land-use change and forestry and, for Parties that have decided to report indirect carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, with and without indirect CO2. Tables 7 and 8 show GHG emissions reported under the Convention by [Party] by gas and by sector, respectively.

Table 6 [Note: the secretariat will complete BEFORE the review-table and footnotes. Provide to LRs for final check before submitting to QA.]Total greenhouse gas emissions for [Party], [average of years 1985–1987][1986][1988][1989][1990]–[Year – 2]a

(kt CO2 eq)

Total GHG emissions excluding indirect CO2

emissionsTotal GHG emissions including indirect CO2

emissionsb

Total including LULUCF

Total excluding LULUCF

Total including LULUCF

Total excluding LULUCF

[Average of years 1985–1987] [1986] [1988][1989][1990]

[1990]

1995

2000

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Abbreviations: GHG = greenhouse gas, LULUCF = land use, land-use change and forestry.a Emissions/removals reported in the sector other (sector 6) are not included in total GHG emissions.b The Party has [not] reported indirect CO2 emissions in common reporting format table 6.

29

FCC

C/A

RR

/2016/[ISO code]

30Table 7 [Note: the secretariat will complete BEFORE the review-table and footnotes. Provide to LRs for final check before submitting to QA. Guidance: two digits after decimal point for emissions, one for % change.]Greenhouse gas emissions by gas for [Party], excluding land use, land-use change and forestry [average of years 1985–1987][1986][1988][1989][1990]–[Year–2]a

(kt CO2 eq)

CO2b CH4 N2O HFCs PFCs Unspecified mix of

HFCs and PFCsSF6 NF3

[Average of years 1985–1987] [1986][1988] [1989][1990]

1990

1995

2000

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

% change [Aver-age of years 1985–1987] [1986][1988] [1989][1990]–[Year – 2]

Abbreviations: [NA = not applicable] [,] [NE = not estimated], [NO = not occurring].a Emissions/removals reported in the sector other (sector 6) are not included in total greenhouse gas emissions.b [CO2 emissions include indirect CO2 emissions reported in common reporting format table 6.][[Party] did not report indirect CO2 emissions in common

reporting format table 6.]


Table 8 [Note: the secretariat will complete the table and footnotes BEFORE the review. Please provide to lead review-ers for final checking before submitting to QA. Guidance: two digits after decimal point for emissions, one for % change.]Greenhouse gas emissions by sector for [Party], [average of years 1985–1987][1986][1988][1989][1990]–[Year–2]a,b

(kt CO2 eq)

Energy IPPU Agriculture LULUCF Waste Other

[Average of years 1985–1987][1986][1988][1989][1990]

[1990]

1995

2000

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

% change [Average of years 1985–1987][1986] [1988][1989][1990]–[Year 2]

Abbreviations: IPPU = industrial processes and product use, LULUCF = land use, land-use change and forestry[, NA = not applicable][, NE = not estimated][, NO = not occurring].

a Emissions/removals reported in the sector other (sector 6) are not included in total greenhouse gas emissions.b [Totals include indirect CO2 emissions reported in common reporting format table 6.][[Party] did not report indirect CO2

emissions in common reporting format table 6.]

31


Annex II

Additional information to support findings in table 2

A. Missing categories that may affect completeness

1. [The categories for which methods are included in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories were reported as “NE” (not estimated) or for which the expert review team otherwise determined that there may be an issue with the completeness of reporting in the Party’s inventory are the following:]Guidance: if applicable, include a list of the missing categories in the order of IPCC categories. Do not include categories reported as “NE” if properly justified that the category(s) is insignificant.

2. [No mandatory categories of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories were identified as missing.]]

B. [Recommendation for an in-country review: list of issues][Guidance: Only include for those Parties for which it is recommended that the subsequent year review be conducted as an in-country review. If no such recommendation is made, then delete this section]

3. The ERT has recommended that the next review for [Party] be conducted as an in–country review. [Insert rationale as to why an ICR is recommended (e.g. as opposed to a CR] In accordance with decision 13/CP.20, annex, paragraph 64, the ERT has provided a list of questions and issues to be addressed during this in-country review, as set out below, that are in addition to the list of issues identified in tables 3 and 5 above.

4. [Issue: e.g. National arrangements (Adherence to the UNFCCC Annex I inventory Reporting Guidelines). The ERT notes that several issues (in particular x, y, …) reflect that the functions pertaining to national arrangements are not fully functional. The in-country review should address issues related to XYZ. The ERT notes in particular issues E.x, I.y, etc {list only issues that necessitate a ICR to be addressed} note: KCA and Unc could be here, as well.

(a) Key questions related to this issue are:

(i) List key questions

5. Issue:

(a) Key questions related to this issue are:

(i) List key questions

6. [Continue listing all issues, as appropriate]

32


Annex III

Documents and information used during the review

[Note: the secretariat will complete BEFORE the review week.]

A. Reference documents

Aggregate information on greenhouse gas emissions by sources and removals by sinks for Parties included in Annex I to the Convention. Note by the secretariat. Available at <http://unfccc.int/resource/webdocs/agi/2015.pdf> .

Annual status report for Party for 2016. Available at <http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2016/asr/xxx.pdf>.

[FCCC/ARR/2015/ISO-Code. Report on the individual review of the inventory submission of [Party] submitted in 2015. Available at <http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2016/arr/ISO.pdf>.]

[FCCC/ARR/2014/ISO-Code. Report on the individual review of the inventory submission of [Party] submitted in 2014. Available at <http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/arr/ISO.pdf>.]

[FCCC/ARR/2013/ISO-Code. Report of the individual review of the inventory submission of [Party] submitted in 2013. Available at <http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2014/arr/ISO.pdf>. ]

Guidance: Include all ARR’s referenced in Table 3.

“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”. Annex to decision 24/CP.19. Available at <http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2013/cop19/eng/10a03.pdf#page=4>.

“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”. Annex to decision 13/CP.20. Available at <http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2014/cop20/eng/10a03.pdf#page=6>.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Available at <http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/index.html>.

[Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2014. 2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands. Available at <http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/wetlands/index.html>]

B. Additional information provided by the Party

Responses to questions during the review were received from [Ms.][Mr.] [Surname] [(organization)], including additional material on the methodology and assumptions used. [The following documents3 were also provided by [Party]:

3 Reproduced as received from the Party.

33


Author. Year. Title in Italics and in Title Case (English translation if appropriate). [City: Publisher.] [Available at <web address>.]]

34


Annex IV

Acronyms and abbreviations

CH4 methaneCMP Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto ProtocolCO2 carbon dioxideCO2 eq carbon dioxide equivalentCOP Conference of the PartiesCRF common reporting formatERT expert review teamGHG greenhouse gasIPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate ChangeIPPU industrial processes and product usekt kilotonne (1 kt = 1 gigagram (Gg))LULUCF land use, land-use change and forestry[NA not applicable][NE not estimated]NIR national inventory report[NO not occurring]QA/QC quality assurance/quality control UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

35


Appendix IQA/QC checklists for LRs/ERTs

1. LR CHECKLIST #1: QC CHECKLIST (END OF REVIEW WEEK)

CHECK Y/NTable 2 includes an assessment by the ERT for each criterion? If the ERT has identified issues related to missing categories/completeness, have the relevant categories been listed in annex II?If the ERT concludes that the Party should be subject to an exceptional in-country review in the subsequent inventory review cycle, has the ERT provided a list of questions and issues to be assessed in annex II?In table 3, has the ERT provided an assessment of the implementation for all previous recommendations included in that table, along with a rationale for its assessment?In table 4, has the ERT identified all issues raised in three successive reviews?In table 4, has the ERT an asterisk next to all issues related to accuracy or completeness of a key category, a missing category or a potential key category, as indicated in the UNFCCC review guidelines, paragraph 83.Have all sectoral experts provided a complete review transcript, including text for the findings to be included in table 5 of the ARR and the classification of whether the finding is an “issue”?

36


2. LR CHECKLIST #2: QA/QC CHECKLIST (SUBMITTED WITH FOD 6 WKS AFTER THE REVIEW WEEK)

Objective: Provide the secretariat with a complete, quality controlled draft ARR that reflects the views of the ERT. Checks are additional to those completed at the end of the review week CHECKS Y

/N

If no, changes needed

Ensure completeness of the reportAll issues identified by the ERT in the review transcript for inclusion in the ARR (i.e. included in the dedicated column in the review transcript) are included in table 5.All relevant references to underlying issues in the report are included in table 2Table 3 includes all “issues” from the previous review reportEnsure quality of findings and consistency across reportsIn table 2, if the ERT indicates a negative assessment or that issues have been identified, are there one or more entries in table 3 or 5 supporting this assessmentThe assessment by the ERT in table 3 is relevant and consistent with the 2006 IPCC guidelines and/or the UNFCCC reporting guidelines and the UNFCCC review guidelinesTable 4 includes the ID# and recommendations from table 3 for all issues that have been highlighted for three or more years (including the current review) (taking into account that the ERT has some discretion to determine whether a Party has made sufficient progress and therefore an issue does not need to be included in table 4). In table 4, any issue identified related to accuracy or completeness of a key category, a missing category or a potential key category, in accordance with para. 83 of the annex to decision 13/CP.20, is identified with an asteriskSubstantive checks: All findings in table 5 clearly outline the problem, the Party’s response during the review and the ERT’s recommendation/encouragement“Issues” are appropriately identified and classified (e.g., transparency, accuracy, consistency…) in accordance with paragraphs 80 and 81 of the annex to decision 13/CP.20. Assessments not related to “issues” are termed “findings”. All “issues” lead to a recommendation

All “findings” lead to an encouragement

CRF tables have been reviewed to ensure that all categories that may impact “completeness” are included in annex II.Only categories for which methods are provided in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines are considered in the assessment of completeness. NumbersReference to base year is in accordance with the UNFCCC reporting guidelines. Values in tables 6, 7 and 8 match the numbers in CRF table Summary 2 in the latest submissionThe footnotes to tables 7 and 8 have been completed, to reflect if the Party reported indirect CO2 emissions.

Checks for ensuring consistency between the 2015 and 2016 ARRsTable 3: Are columns 1-3 identical in the 2015 and 2016 ARRs?Table 3: Has the ERT confirmed the status of each recommendation, considering separately the 2015 and 2016 inventory submission?Table 4: Is this table identical between the 2015 and 2016 ARRs, with the exception that any reference to “2015” in the 2015 ARR is changed to “2015/2016” in the 2016 ARR?

37