Climate Change: Selected Nations' Reports on Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Varied in Their Adherence to Standards (23-DEC-03,
GAO-04-98).
In 1992, the United States and other parties, including both
developed and developing nations, agreed to try to limit
dangerous human interference with the climate by participating in
the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The
parties agreed, among other things, to report on their emissions
of carbon dioxide and five other gases whose buildup in the
atmosphere is believed to affect the climate. The parties
developed standards for these reports and processes for
periodically evaluating the reports. Expert teams selected by the
parties review the developed nations' reports; staff of the
Framework Convention's administrative arm (the Secretariat)
assess developing nations' reports. GAO agreed to describe the
results of the most recent reviews and assessments of reports
from selected economically developed and developing nations, as
well as the parties' plans to improve the reports. For the
developed nations, GAO agreed to study four geographically
dispersed nations with high levels of emissions--Germany, Japan,
the United Kingdom, and the United States. For the developing
nations, GAO studied China, India, and Mexico, which also have
high emissions levels and are geographically dispersed. These
nations are not representative of others; therefore, GAO's
findings cannot be generalized.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-04-98
ACCNO: A09042
TITLE: Climate Change: Selected Nations' Reports on Greenhouse
Gas Emissions Varied in Their Adherence to Standards
DATE: 12/23/2003
SUBJECT: Climate statistics
Environment evaluation
Environmental monitoring
Reporting requirements
International cooperation
Air pollution
Evaluation criteria
Evaluation methods
China
Germany
India
Mexico
Japan
United Kingdom
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO Product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
******************************************************************
GAO-04-98
United States General Accounting Office
GAO
Report to Congressional Requesters
December 2003
CLIMATE CHANGE
Selected Nations' Reports on Greenhouse Gas Emissions Varied in Their Adherence
to Standards
a
GAO-04-98
Highlights of GAO-04-98, a report to the Chairmen, Committee on Energy and
Commerce and its Subcommittees on Energy and Air Quality and Oversight and
Investigations, House of Representatives
In 1992, the United States and other parties, including both developed and
developing nations, agreed to try to limit dangerous human interference
with the climate by participating in the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change. The parties agreed, among other things, to
report on their emissions of carbon dioxide and five other gases whose
buildup in the atmosphere is believed to affect the climate. The parties
developed standards for these reports and processes for periodically
evaluating the reports. Expert teams selected by the parties review the
developed nations' reports; staff of the Framework Convention's
administrative arm (the Secretariat) assess developing nations' reports.
GAO agreed to describe the results of the most recent reviews and
assessments of reports from selected economically developed and developing
nations, as well as the parties' plans to improve the reports.
December 2003
CLIMATE CHANGE
Selected Nations' Reports on Greenhouse Gas Emissions Varied in Their Adherence
to Standards
In their most recent reviews, expert teams found that the United Kingdom's
2000 and 2002 reports on greenhouse gas emissions and the United States's
2000 report were largely complete, although the teams noted minor
findings, such as the lack of information on quality assurance methods,
which the nations were encouraged, but not required, to include in their
submissions. In contrast, they found that Germany's 2001 and Japan's 2000
reports lacked critical elements, such as the required documentation that
was essential to understanding them. Preliminary checks found that all
four nations' 2003 reports were largely complete.
Secretariat staff have not assessed inventories from China and India
because these nations have not submitted them. According to Secretariat
records, China and India plan to submit inventories in February 2004 and
November 2003, respectively. Secretariat staff assessed Mexico's most
recent inventory, but they reported few details about it because their
policy is to consolidate the findings of all the developing nations'
inventories submitted during a year.
To improve the inventories, the parties are changing the reporting
standards and review process. For example, starting in 2004, developed
nations must present their inventory reports in a standardized format to
facilitate review, and developing nations must report data for more years
and gases than before. Also, in 2003, the parties began conducting more
rigorous reviews of developed nations' inventories, but no such changes
for developing nations are planned.
For the developed nations, GAO Carbon Dioxide Emissions for the Seven
Nations in GAO's Study, Actual and Projected
agreed to study four geographically dispersed nations with high levels of
emissions-Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States. For
the developing nations, GAO studied China, India, and Mexico, which also
have high emissions levels and are geographically dispersed. These nations
are not representative of others; therefore, GAO's findings cannot be
generalized.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-98.
To view the full report, including the scope and methodology, click on the
link above. For more information, contact John Stephenson, 202-512-3841 or
[email protected].
Contents
Letter
Results in Brief
Background
Recent Reviews Found That U.K. and U.S. Inventories Were Largely
Complete, but German and Japanese Inventories Lacked Critical Elements
Little Nation-Specific Inventory Information Is Available for the Three
Developing Nations
The Four Developed Nations Reported Generally High Confidence in Their
Latest Emissions Data, but Future Assessments of Confidence Must Be More
Precise
The Parties Are Taking Steps to Improve the Quality of Emissions
Data Scope and Methodology Agency Comments
1 4 6
14
15
17
21 23 24
Appendixes
Results of Expert Reviews of the Four Developed
Appendix I: Nations'
Inventories 26
Appendix II: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 29
GAO Contacts 29
Staff Acknowledgments 29
Table 1: Comparative Statistics of the Seven
Tables Nations in Our Study 9
Table 2: Four Developed Nations' Ratings of
Confidence in Their
Data for Total Emissions in 2001 19
Table 3: Results of the Most Recent Expert
Reviews of the Four
Developed Nations' Inventories 27
Figure 1: Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Developed
Figures and Developing Nations and Nations with
Economies in Transition, 1970
through 2025, Actual and Projected 7
Figure 2: Carbon Dioxide Emissions for the
Seven Nations in Our
Study, Actual and Projected 8
Contents
Abbreviations
EIA Energy Information Administration
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
separately.
A
United States General Accounting Office Washington, D.C. 20548
December 23, 2003
The Honorable W.J. "Billy" Tauzin
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce
House of Representatives
The Honorable Joe Barton
Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality
Committee on Energy and Commerce
House of Representatives
The Honorable James Greenwood
Chairman, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
Committee on Energy and Commerce
House of Representatives
The Congress recently debated the need to limit U.S. emissions of the so
called "greenhouse gases"-whose buildup in the atmosphere is widely
believed to adversely affect the climate. This debate dates back to at
least
1992, when the United States and most of the other nations of the world
took steps toward ensuring that worldwide progress in reducing
greenhouse gas emissions could eventually be measured. At that time, the
nations negotiated the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change (hereafter called the Framework Convention) with the aim of
stabilizing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and five other
greenhouse gases.1 The nations also agreed to periodically report on their
greenhouse gas emissions.2
1The five other gases are methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons,
perfluorocarbons, and sulfur dioxide.
2In 1997, the United States and other parties to the Framework Convention
participated in drafting the Kyoto Protocol, an international agreement to
specifically limit emissions of the six greenhouse gases, and in 1998 the
United States signed the protocol. However, President Clinton did not
submit the protocol to the Senate for advice and consent, which are
necessary for ratification. In March 2001, President Bush announced that
he opposed the protocol.
As of November 2003, 188 parties had ratified the Framework Convention,
including the United States.3 Of this total, 40 parties-39 nations and the
European Union as a whole-are listed in Annex I of the convention. The 39
Annex I nations include the economically developed nations of the world as
well as nations whose economies are in transition, including the Russian
Federation, the Baltic states, and several central and eastern European
nations. The Annex I nations have agreed to report annually on their
emissions levels. The annual reports, called inventories, generally
reflect estimated-rather than directly measured-data. The remaining 148
nations that are party to the Framework Convention but are not included in
Annex I-"non-Annex I nations"-are generally classified as economically
developing nations. These nations also agreed to report on their
emissions, but in less detail and less frequently than the Annex I
nations.
Recognizing that good-quality data on all nations' greenhouse gas
emissions are critical to determining whether the Framework Convention is
successful at stabilizing greenhouse gas emissions worldwide, the parties
to the convention are working in several ways to ensure the quality of the
emissions data that nations report. First, with technical assistance from
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),4 the parties
developed extensive procedures for all nations to follow when estimating
and reporting their greenhouse gas emissions and removals (removals offset
emissions-for example, forests absorb carbon dioxide, removing it from the
air). In addition, the developed Annex I nations agreed to provide funds
to help the non-Annex I nations develop their inventories. Finally, the
parties agreed that nations' estimates of their emissions, and the
documentation that supports these estimates, would undergo one of two main
types of review: one for Annex I nations and another for non-Annex I
nations. Annex I nations' inventories periodically undergo individual
reviews performed by teams of experts assembled from the party nations.
The expert reviews are extensive, examining all aspects of each inventory
and its preparation to determine whether the inventory complied with the
estimating and reporting procedures. The Framework Convention's
3We use the term "ratified" to indicate that nations have ratified,
accepted, approved, or acceded to the Framework Convention. The convention
entered into force after it was ratified by 50 nations.
4Established by the World Meteorological Organization and the United
Nations Environment Program in 1988, the IPCC supports the parties by
providing scientific, technical, and socioeconomic advice through periodic
assessments and special publications, such as the guidelines it developed
on estimating emissions and removals.
administrative arm, the Secretariat, publishes a report on the findings of
each nation's individual expert review. Non-Annex I nations' inventories
are assessed by Secretariat staff, who examine all such inventories
submitted during the year. The assessment is less extensive and evaluative
than the review of Annex I nations' submissions. It focuses on identifying
problems that the developing nations have had with preparing and reporting
their inventories and ways to improve them. The Secretariat issues one
report each year discussing its findings on the non-Annex I nations'
inventories in summary format, with few nation-specific details.
We agreed with your offices to (1) describe the results of the most recent
expert reviews of the greenhouse gas inventories submitted by four
economically developed nations-Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the
United States; (2) describe the results of any assessments of the
inventories of three developing nations-China, India, and Mexico; (3)
determine the extent to which the developed nations have confidence in the
quality of their inventory data, and describe any changes that the parties
to the Framework Convention have made to requirements for assessing data
confidence in the future; and (4) describe any steps that the parties to
the Framework Convention are taking as a group to improve the quality of
future inventories, including when such improvements might be in place.
Also as agreed with your offices, in examining these issues, we did not
independently review the nations' inventories to assess their quality.
Instead, we examined the guidance developed for the nations and the
requirements they are to meet in preparing and reporting their greenhouse
gas inventories and believe the guidance provides reasonable parameters
for ensuring good-quality inventory data. We also examined the methodology
for the reviews of developed nations' inventories and believe it provides
reasonable help to reviewers in evaluating the quality of inventories. We
relied on the findings of the reviews as reported by the Secretariat.
Regarding the Annex I nations, we agreed to study the two European Union
nations and the two non-European Union nations with the highest levels of
emissions that are developed nations, according to the most recent data
available to the United Nations (2001). Although some nations that are
considered Annex I nations have economies in transition and emit
significant levels of greenhouse gases, as agreed, we did not include them
in our study. Regarding the non-Annex I nations-developing nations-we
agreed to study China, India, and Mexico because of their high levels of
greenhouse gas emissions and geographic dispersion. These seven nations
are not necessarily representative of other parties to the
Framework Convention; accordingly, our findings are not generalizable to
the other parties. Although we spoke with U.S. officials who are
responsible for assembling and managing the U.S. inventory, we did not
speak with comparable officials in the other six nations. It is our policy
to contact foreign government officials through the U.S. Department of
State, and we asked the department to facilitate that contact; however,
the department did not arrange for those contacts during our review. State
Department officials asserted that issues of reporting and review under
the Framework Convention have been particularly sensitive for the
developing nations; also, foreign governments might not readily grasp the
different roles of the General Accounting Office and the State Department.
As a result, according to State Department officials, some governments
might view a request of this nature from the United States as intrusive,
raising suspicions about the underlying purpose of such a study.
Results in Brief The most recent expert reviews of the greenhouse gas
inventories submitted by Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the
United States found that the U.K. and U.S. submissions were largely
complete, while Germany's and Japan's submissions lacked certain critical
elements. At the time of our study, the most recent expert reviews were
for inventories submitted by Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United
States in 2000; by Germany in 2001; and by the United Kingdom in 2002. The
reviews of the U.K. and U.S. inventories found they contained nearly all
of the required information and noted only relatively minor problems, such
as not providing information on the quality assurance procedures used.
Accordingly, the experts' suggestions for improving those submissions were
not substantial; for example, the expert review report for the 2000 U.K.
submission suggested that the United Kingdom archive all of the
documentation supporting its inventory in one location or on the Web. In
contrast, the reviews of Germany's and Japan's inventories found that both
were missing some important elements. For example, both submissions lacked
the required report explaining how the emissions estimates were developed.
The experts suggested fundamental improvements for future inventories,
such as submitting all of the required information. The Secretariat's
preliminary examination of all four nations' 2003 submissions found that
they were largely complete and contained national inventory reports.
Neither China nor India has submitted an inventory to the Secretariat;
Mexico submitted an inventory as recently as 2001, which the Secretariat
assessed. According to the Secretariat, China and India are preparing
their
initial inventories, which, under the Framework Convention, are due within
3 years of when the convention entered into force for that nation or when
the financial assistance provided by the developed nations to help with
reporting becomes available. According to the Secretariat, China's
inventory is due by November 2004 and India's by July 2004. Regarding the
Secretariat's assessment of Mexico's 2001 submission, little information
that could be directly tied to Mexico was released. Instead, the
Secretariat consolidated the results with those of the 51 other non-Annex
I nations that it examined at the same time, as is its usual practice for
the assessments.
The four developed nations reported generally high confidence in the
emissions data presented in their most recent submissions; however, future
assessments of confidence in these data must be quantified to produce more
useful information. For the 2003 and previous submissions, developed
nations were required to assess as high, medium, or low their confidence
in their inventory data for each major emission source and removal. The
developed nations could use either qualitative or quantitative methods for
making those assessments, and no criteria existed for determining which of
the three categories was the most appropriate. In their 2003 submissions,
all four developed nations reported that they had high confidence in at
least 75 percent of their total emissions data, largely because most
emissions are carbon dioxide, which is relatively easy to estimate with a
high degree of accuracy. Effective next year, the developed nations are
required to assess their confidence in their data using quantitative
methods and to report numerical ratings instead of reporting by the three
categories (high, medium, or low). The parties consider using quantitative
methods to be the better practice because the resulting numerical ratings
give a more precise assessment of nations' confidence in their data and
make it easier for the nations to set priorities when deciding how to
improve the accuracy of the inventories.
To improve the quality of data on greenhouse gas emissions, the parties to
the Framework Convention are refining their requirements for nations'
inventories and bolstering their review processes, with the changes to
take effect over the next few years. Changes to the inventory requirements
affect both Annex I and non-Annex I nations. For example, in addition to
the new requirement for performing a quantified assessment of data
confidence, Annex I nations will be required to structure the
documentation that explains the inventories according to a standardized
format beginning with their 2004 submissions. For non-Annex I nations, the
revised requirements are intended to encourage more of the nations to
submit inventories as well as to improve the quality of the inventories.
For
example, as of 2003, non-Annex I nations that have not yet submitted their
first inventories must submit data for either 1990 or 1994 in their first
submissions, and all non-Annex I nations must include data for 2000 when
they submit their second inventories. This is in contrast to the
requirement that Annex I nations annually report data for all years, from
1990 to the present. In addition, the parties plan to bolster the expert
review process for Annex I nations. For example, until this year, only a
portion of the 39 Annex I nations underwent an expert review each year;
however, beginning with the 2003 submissions, each of the 39 nations will
be subject to an annual expert review. The changes to the review process
are intended to standardize it and to ensure that reviews are conducted
effectively and consistently. According to the Secretariat, the parties
have no plans to change the assessment process for non-Annex I nations'
inventories, but the new reporting guidance for non-Annex I nations is
designed to facilitate any assessment process changes that the parties
might institute in the future.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which is responsible for
preparing the U.S. submission, provided clarifying comments on a draft of
this report, which we incorporated as appropriate. We also requested
comments from the State Department and the Framework Convention
Secretariat, but none were provided.
Background Scientists have discovered that changes in the earth's climate
are induced by the increasing concentrations of certain gases in the
earth's atmosphere-some naturally occurring, others human-induced-that
have the potential to significantly alter the planet's heat and radiation
balance. These so-called "greenhouse gases" trap some of the sun's energy
and prevent it from returning to space. The trapped energy warms the
earth's climate, much like glass in a greenhouse. Over the past century,
humans have contributed to the greenhouse effect, particularly by burning
fossil fuels, which increased atmospheric carbon dioxide and other
greenhouse gases. The effects of a warmer climate could have important
consequences for human health and welfare by, among other things, altering
weather patterns, changing crop yields, and leading to the flooding of
coastal areas.
According to the Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration
(EIA), in 2001, the most recent year for which data are available, the
United States and other developed nations accounted for just under half
(47 percent) of the world's emissions of carbon dioxide-the most prevalent
greenhouse gas. The other emissions came from
economically developing nations, including China, India, and Mexico (40
percent), and from nations with economies in transition (13 percent) in
Europe and the Former Soviet Union. EIA projects that, over the next 2
decades, carbon dioxide emissions from each of the three nation groups
will increase; however, carbon dioxide emissions from developing nations
will increase most dramatically, surpassing those of developed nations by
2015, as shown in figure 1.
Figure 1: Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Developed and Developing Nations and
Nations with Economies in Transition, 1970 through 2025, Actual and
Projected
Million metric tons
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 Year
Developed nations Developing nations Nations with economies in transition
Source: GAO analysis of Energy Information Administration data.
Note: The Energy Information Administration includes data on Croatia's and
Slovenia's emissions with those of the developed nations, rather than with
emissions data from the other nations with economies in transition.
More specifically, figure 2 shows actual and projected carbon dioxide
emissions for the seven nations in our study. Growth in emissions between
2001 and 2025 is projected to range from 29 million metric tons for the
United Kingdom to 1,012 for China.
Figure 2: Carbon Dioxide Emissions for the Seven Nations in Our Study,
Actual and Projected
The seven nations in our study also differ greatly in terms of their
population and per capita income (an indicator of economic development).
For example, population ranged from about 60 million in the United Kingdom
to nearly 1.3 billion in China, and per capita income ranged from $2,540
in India to $36,300 in the United States. (See table 1.)
Table 1: Comparative Statistics of the Seven Nations in Our Study
Estimated population, Per capita income, Nation 2002 (millions) 2001 or
2002
Economically developed nations Economically developing nations
Germany 83.3 $26,600 (2002)
Japan 127.0 28,000 (2002)
United Kingdom 60.0 25,300 (2002)
United States 281.0 36,300 (2001)
China 1,284.3 4,600 (2002)
India 1,045.8 2,540 (2002)
Mexico 103.4 9,000 (2001)
Source: Central Intelligence Agency, The World Fact Book (2002).
Notes:
Some figures have been rounded.
Estimated per capita income is based on purchasing power parity rates.
Purchasing power parity is based on the assumption that a unit of
currency, such as a dollar, should be able to buy the same bundle of goods
in all countries.
Under the Framework Convention, the United States and the other parties
generally agreed to implement policies and measures aimed at returning
"individually or jointly to their 1990 levels these anthropogenic
[humancaused] emissions" of greenhouse gases not covered by another
treaty, the Montreal Protocol.5 The six primary gases covered by the
Framework Convention are carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, and three
synthetic gases-sulfur hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons, and
perfluorocarbons. Emissions of these gases are generally not measured
because doing so would be too costly; consequently, they must be
estimated.6 In this regard, the IPCC, at the parties' request, developed
detailed guidance on methodologies for nations to use when estimating
their emissions and revised that guidance twice, most recently in 1999.
Both developed and developing nations are required to follow this
guidance-Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories-when preparing their inventories. In addition, in 2000, the
IPCC published-also at the parties' request-its Good Practice Guidance and
Uncertainty Management in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, which
contains information on prioritizing tasks to arrive at the best possible
estimates using finite resources as well as advice on establishing quality
assurance programs, among other things. The nations have been encouraged,
but not required, to follow the good practice guidance.
5The Montreal Protocol, ratified by the United States in 1988, aims to
reduce the use of substances that deplete stratospheric ozone. Among these
substances are chlorofluorocarbons, which are also potent greenhouse
gases.
6According to EPA officials, because of the way carbon dioxide emissions
are estimated, the results are as accurate as they would be if they were
measured.
The parties to the Framework Convention also agreed to report periodically
to the Secretariat on their levels of greenhouse gas emissions. For Annex
I nations, those reports are extensive. Annually, each Annex I nation is
required to submit inventory data-in a common reporting format the parties
themselves agreed to-as well as a national inventory report that explains
how the data in the common reporting format were derived. The common
reporting format calls for data for each of the six emissions
sectors-energy, industrial processes, solvent and other product use,
agriculture, land-use change and forestry, and waste-as well as for the
data on the major sources that contribute to emissions from each sector.
The inventory data are to reflect a nation's most recent reporting year as
well as all previous years back to the base year, which is 1990.7 For each
year, the common reporting format calls for 42 tables containing over
8,100 items that are sector-specific numbers; data summarized across
sectors; and other information, such as trends from the base year to the
current reporting year, recalculations of prior years' data, and reasons
certain emissions were not estimated. The parties require that data be
submitted in the common reporting format to facilitate comparison across
nations and to make it easier to review the data. Because an inventory
contains data from the base year to the most recent reporting year, each
year's submission is larger than the last. The 2003 reporting format
called for approximately 98,000 items of inventory data and other
information from 1990 through 2001.
The national inventory report, the second component of the submission,
should be detailed and complete enough to enable reviewers to understand
and evaluate the inventory. The report should include, among other things,
descriptions of the methods used to estimate the data, the rationale for
selecting the methods used, and information about the complexity of
methods and the resulting precision of the estimates; information on
quality assurance procedures used; discussion of any recalculations
affecting previously submitted inventory data; and information on
improvements planned for future inventories.
Each year, when Secretariat staff receive Annex I nations' submissions,
they perform an initial check to determine whether the submissions are
complete and then synthesize the information to facilitate comparison
across nations. Teams of expert reviewers-comprising members chosen
7Five Annex I nations with economies in transition-Bulgaria, Hungary,
Poland, Romania, and Slovenia-are allowed to use other years as baselines.
by the parties for their sector expertise as well as to achieve broad
geographic representation-also use this synthesized information to
identify issues requiring clarification during their reviews of individual
submissions.
From 2000 through 2002, the parties tested the usefulness of three methods
of conducting expert reviews on selected submissions from Annex I nations.
The first type of review, called a desk review, consists of about 10
experts spending about 4 weeks in their respective nations reviewing
information on the same three nations' inventories. For this type of
review, the experts communicate with each other and the nation being
reviewed via the Internet and telephone. The second type of review, called
a centralized review, involves about 10 experts spending about a week at
the Secretariat's headquarters in Bonn, Germany, jointly reviewing between
four and six nations' inventories. The third review type, called an
incountry review, consists of a team of about 5 experts spending a week in
the nation whose inventory is being reviewed, jointly examining the
nation's inventory and supporting information. The Secretariat chose
inventories of different levels of completeness to undergo desk and
centralized reviews; only nations that volunteered for an in-country
review received one.
During the 3-year test period, the experts examined the data and
supporting information the nations used to prepare the inventories via all
three types of reviews. For example, the experts determined whether a
nation calculated its emissions estimates using formulas from published
data sources or formulas specified by the parties. The experts also
verified the information provided in response to questions raised in
previous reviews. Finally, the experts summarized the inventories'
strengths and weaknesses; made recommendations for improvement, if
warranted; and presented their findings in reports that were both
published and posted on the Internet.
For Annex I nations' submissions to be reviewed by the experts, the
submissions must meet two criteria. Since 2000, the experts have reviewed
only submissions that presented their data in the common reporting format,
and, beginning with the 2003 submissions, the experts will review only
submissions that include the national inventory report. According to the
parties to the Framework Convention, the goal of the expert reviews is to
identify areas in the inventories needing improvement; for this reason,
the experts' reports do not rate the overall quality of the submissions,
and the reports do not identify some findings as being more important than
others. According to the Secretariat, since 1998, Annex I nations'
submissions have steadily and substantially improved in their timeliness
and completeness, and the expert review process has contributed to the
improved quality of recent submissions.
Non-Annex I nations' requirements for format and frequency of reporting
differ from those for Annex I nations. Although all parties to the
Framework Convention are to develop their inventories using the revised
1996 IPCC guidelines and submit the inventories to the Secretariat,
non-Annex I nations' inventories are not stand-alone documents. Rather, a
non-Annex I nation's inventory is a component of its national
communication, which is a report it must submit to the Secretariat that
discusses all of the steps the nation is taking or plans to take to
implement the Framework Convention.8 In addition, non-Annex I nations are
not required to use the common reporting format or to submit a national
inventory report. Moreover, non-Annex I nations are not required to submit
an inventory each year but may instead negotiate the frequency of their
submissions. To date, most non-Annex I nations negotiated a deadline for
only one inventory.9 To help the non-Annex I nations develop and report
their inventories, the developed nations of Annex I provide financial
assistance that is disbursed through the convention's financial mechanism,
the Global Environment Facility. The facility, which funds various types
of environmental projects in developing nations,10 disburses the funds,
including those to assist non-Annex I nations with their emissions
reporting, through implementing agencies, such as the United Nations
Development Program. The implementing agencies, in turn, disburse the
funds to the nations on a schedule and according to terms negotiated by
the agency and each nation.
8Annex I nations also submit national communications discussing their
efforts to implement the Framework Convention in addition to submitting
stand-alone inventories, but the format and frequency of the national
communications are different for Annex I and non-Annex I nations.
9According to the EPA official who managed the 2003 U.S. inventory, the
parties to the Framework Convention plan to discuss increasing the
frequency of non-Annex I nations' inventory reporting during the next
conference of the parties in December 2003.
10In addition to funding climate change projects, the Global Environment
Facility also funds projects related to biodiversity, international
waters, land degradation, ozone depletion, and persistent organic
pollutants.
The inventory reviews and the extent to which the results are reported
also differ for Annex I and non-Annex I nations. Reviews of Annex I
nations' submissions focus on compliance with reporting standards, and the
results are made publicly available in considerable detail. In contrast,
because non-Annex I nations are generally in the early stages of
developing their inventories and have limited resources to do so,
assessments of their submissions, and the resulting reports, focus largely
on providing a forum for the non-Annex I nations to exchange information
on common reporting problems and best practices. Consequently, while the
Secretariat makes reports on the results of non-Annex I assessments
publicly available, it does so in summary format and provides only a few
nation-specific details in tables that accompany the aggregated reports.
Recent Reviews Found That U.K. and U.S. Inventories Were Largely Complete, but
German and Japanese Inventories Lacked Critical Elements
The most recent expert reviews of inventories submitted by the four
developed nations found that the U.K. and U.S. inventories contained most
of the required elements, but the German and Japanese inventories were
missing certain critical elements. Experts reviewed inventories variously
submitted from 2000 through 2002 by each of the four developed nations in
our study. The inventories submitted by Japan and Germany in 2000 and
2001, respectively, each received a centralized review. Two U.K.
inventories were reviewed: the one submitted in 2000 received an
in-country review, and the one submitted in 2002 received a desk review.
The inventory that the United States submitted in 2000 received both an
in-country review and a desk review. Although the experts planned to
conduct reviews of all Annex I nations' inventories submitted in 2003, no
results were available at the time of our study.
The reviews of the submissions of the United Kingdom and the United States
found they were largely complete and noted only relatively minor problems.
For example, the reviews of the two nations' 2000 submissions noted that
neither submission included information on quality assurance procedures.
Although the good practice guidance calls for including such information
in the national inventory report, the nations were encouraged, but not
required, to follow the good practice guidance for the 2000 submissions.
Nonetheless, the experts included the lack of quality assurance
documentation as a finding of the reviews. Because the problems noted were
relatively minor, the suggestions for improving future submissions
constituted refinements rather than recommendations for large-scale
changes. For example, the experts' report on the 2000 U.K. submission
suggested archiving the documentation supporting the national inventory
report in one location or on the Web. Similarly, the report on the
desk review of the 2000 U.S. submission suggested that more details on the
methods and factors used to estimate emissions for the land-use change and
forestry sector would allow more complete assessment of that sector's
data.
In contrast, the reviews of the German and Japanese submissions found them
to be missing some critical components, and the experts' reports made
suggestions for improvement that were fundamental in nature. For example,
the review of Germany's 2001 submission found it contained only
summary-level and trend data; it did not include any of the
sector-specific data tables or recalculations of prior years' data called
for by the common reporting format. Furthermore, the national inventory
report was missing, so the reviewers could not determine whether problems
noted in previous inventories had been addressed. Although the review of
the Japanese 2000 submission found most of the data required by the common
reporting format was included, like the German submission, this one lacked
the national inventory report. As a result of these shortcomings, the
experts suggested that Germany submit a complete set of data for all of
the required years and sectors and that both nations submit the national
inventory report. Additional details on the findings of the six expert
reviews are contained in appendix I.
Although none of the four Annex I nations' latest submissions-for 2003-
had undergone an expert review as of November 2003, Secretariat staff had
performed initial completeness checks on each of them. They found that all
four nations' submissions contained most of the required data as well as
the required national inventory reports.
Little Nation-Specific Inventory Information Is Available for the Three
Developing Nations
The Secretariat has not assessed any inventories from China and India
because, as of November 2003, neither nation had submitted one. The
Secretariat assessed Mexico's 2001 submission, but the Secretariat's
practice is to issue one report on the findings of its assessments of all
the inventories submitted during the year, with few nation-specific
details. Therefore, the Secretariat made public little information about
the results of its assessments that could be directly tied to Mexico.
According to the Secretariat, China and India are preparing their initial
inventories, to be submitted as part of their first national
communications. Under article 12, paragraph 5, of the Framework
Convention, non-Annex I nations' first inventories are due to the
Secretariat "within three years of the entry into force of the Framework
Convention or of the availability of
financial resources" from the developed nations in Annex I. According to
the Secretariat, funding was approved for China in May 2000 and for India
in December 1999, and the first disbursements of funds took place in
November 2001 for China and in July 2001 for India. According to the
Secretariat, the due dates for their first greenhouse gas inventories are
no later than November 2004 for China and July 2004 for India.
Mexico submitted inventories in 1997 and 2001. Although 106 developing
nations had submitted their initial inventories as of November 2003,
Mexico is the only nation to have submitted more than one. Secretariat
staff assessed Mexico's 2001 inventory, along with those of 51 other
non-Annex I nations that submitted inventories that year. In keeping with
its practice of reporting on its assessments of non-Annex I nations'
inventories as a group, the report for 2001 contained only limited details
that could be linked specifically to Mexico's inventory. In particular,
the Secretariat reported that Mexico had improved its estimates of
emissions from the energy, agriculture, and land-use change and forestry
sectors. It also reported that Mexico could further improve its inventory
by establishing systematic procedures for preparing the inventory annually
and by including estimates for the solvent-use sector. Otherwise, the
Secretariat reported only generally on the results of the assessments of
submissions of the 52 non-Annex I nations' inventories.
Mexico's 2001 submission contained estimates for 1994, 1996, and 1998.
According to an EPA official who is knowledgeable about Mexico's
inventory, the 2001 Mexico inventory is of reasonably high quality,
especially considering the limited resources Mexico has dedicated to
developing it. According to its submission, Mexico followed the IPCC
estimating guidelines and good practice guidance in preparing the
inventory. The EPA official further commented that Mexico's 2001
submission is among the best of those of the developing nations, and in
some cases-for example, in presentation of its carbon dioxide emissions
data-is equal to those of some developed nations. On the other hand,
according to that official, Mexico did not (1) comply with the IPCC
estimating guidelines in developing the land-use change and forestry
sector data, (2) adequately estimate data for the three synthetic gases,
or (3) provide adequate documentation explaining the inventory.
Furthermore, Mexico developed its two inventories independent of each
other, without establishing a process that would systematically make
documentation and data additions and revisions as needed. Consequently, in
the opinion of the EPA official, it was difficult for Mexico to build upon
its previous efforts when preparing its second inventory.
The Four Developed Nations Reported Generally High Confidence in Their Latest
Emissions Data, but Future Assessments of Confidence Must Be More Precise
As required for the 2003 submissions, the four developed nations
categorized their confidence in their emissions data as either high,
medium, or low. All four nations reported their confidence in the data as
generally high. To improve the usefulness of nations' assessments of data
confidence, however, beginning with the 2004 submissions, developed
nations must quantify their confidence assessments.
The Four Developed Nations Rated Their Confidence in Their Most Recent
Emissions Data as Generally High
As previously explained, the parties to the Framework Convention have
constructed an extensive system of estimating and reporting requirements,
buttressed by periodic reviews, to help nations produce inventory data
that are of high quality. The parties do not attempt, on the basis of the
reviews or any other means, to assign a grade or otherwise rate any
nation's success in producing high-quality data. However, as one means of
helping developed nations identify areas where their data can be
strengthened, the parties require each nation to assess its confidence in
the accuracy of its own data. Specifically, the nations are required
annually to analyze the quality of the data they report (called an
uncertainty analysis) for each gas and for each major source of emissions
and removals in each of the six sectors. To do this, the nations have been
encouraged, but not required, to use the quantitative methods of
uncertainty analysis included in the IPCC good practice guidance.
Alternatively, they could rely on qualitative means to determine their
confidence in these data. In either case, they have been required to
report whether they had high, medium, or low confidence in each estimate
of emissions of each of the six gases by each major source of those
emissions. The nations have not been required to report on their
confidence in the accuracy of the inventory data as a whole. The parties
did not provide further criteria for nations to use when determining which
of the three categories was most appropriate.11
11According to EPA officials, the confidence a nation has in the accuracy
of its inventory depends on the predominant sources of its emissions, as
well as on the completeness of the inventory and the quality of the
methods it uses to estimate emissions. For example, a nation such as New
Zealand, whose greenhouse gas emissions' sources are predominantly in the
agriculture and land-use change and forestry sectors, may have lower
confidence in the accuracy of its inventory data as a whole than a nation
such as the United States, whose emissions originate predominantly from
the energy sector, even though both nations might be using
state-of-the-art estimation methods. This is because emissions estimates
from the agriculture and land-use change and forestry sectors are
inherently less accurate than those originating from fossil fuels that
produce energy.
As required, all four developed nations reported high, medium, or low
ratings of confidence in their estimates for their 2001 emissions by
source. To determine the confidence each nation had in its inventory data
as a whole, we calculated the proportion of each nation's data that
corresponded to each of the three rating categories. According to our
calculations, all four nations rated their confidence in their inventory
data as a whole as generally high, with the high-confidence ratings
ranging from about 75 percent for the United States to about 96 percent
for Japan. The high-confidence ratings occurred largely because the lion's
share of each nation's total emissions is carbon dioxide from fuel
combustion, which can be estimated with a relatively high level of
confidence. Table 2 shows each nation's ratings for total emissions by
gigagrams of carbon dioxide equivalent, which is the unit of measurement
used by the parties to the Framework Convention to allow comparisons among
greenhouse gases, which differ in their effects on the atmosphere and
expected lifetimes.
Table 2: Four Developed Nations' Ratings of Confidence in Their Data for Total
Emissions in 2001
Gigagrams of carbon dioxide equivalent
Developed nations' ratings of confidence for total emissions
Amount
Amount Percentage rated Percentage Amount Percentage Amount Percentage
Nation rated rated high medium rated rated rated low not not rated
high medium low rated
Germany 948,175 93.1 59,054 5.8 7,982 0.8 3,817
Japan 1,244,048 95.7 20,056 1.5 35,326 2.7 15 0a
United
Kingdom 561,274 82.9 53,907 8.0 62,036 9.2 12 0a
United
States 5,670,596 72.9 1,462,157 18.8 567,775 7.3 73,816
Source: GAO analysis of data from the four nations' 2003 submissions to
the Framework Convention Secretariat.
Notes:
Percentages do not total to 100 because of rounding.
In compiling this table, to fully report the nations' ratings for the six
gases, we added the amount of removals to the amount of gross emissions;
consequently, the data in the table do not match the net emissions
reported by the nations.
aPercentage is less than .005 and rounds to 0.
Although the national inventory reports contained some information about
the nations' confidence in their data, none of the nations explained the
criteria they used to determine the high-, medium-, and low-confidence
ratings they reported.
Developed Nations Must Use Quantitative Methods to Assess Their Confidence
in Their Data in 2004
In November 2002, the parties decided to require developed nations to use
the quantitative methods in the IPCC good practice guidance to develop
estimates of data uncertainty beginning with the 2004 submissions. Instead
of designating high, medium, or low ratings of confidence, under the new
requirements, developed nations must quantify their uncertainty in their
emissions estimates for each gas by each major source using 95 percent
confidence levels. In addition, they must combine the source uncertainty
estimates into a quantified uncertainty estimate for the inventory as a
whole and estimate the uncertainty in the trend between the base year and
the most recent year.
The IPCC good practice guidance provides detailed instructions for nations
to follow to produce the quantitative estimates of data uncertainty. The
guidance also describes two methods for combining quantitative uncertainty
estimates-one consisting of relatively simple statistical calculations
that result in a numerical uncertainty estimate, and the other using
computer simulation to calculate the estimates. The computer simulation is
a more sophisticated method and should result in more accurate estimates;
however, according to the EPA official responsible for compiling the U.S.
inventory, the computer simulation also is more costly than the simpler
method. Because of this, the good practice guidance states that the
nations must use the simpler of the two methods to produce their combined
uncertainty estimates; in addition, they are encouraged to use the more
sophisticated method when sufficient resources and expertise are
available.
For example, in its 2003 inventory submission, the United Kingdom used
both methods from the good practice guidance to quantitatively estimate
its confidence in its 2001 emissions data as a whole. Using the simpler
method, the United Kingdom reported an uncertainty value of 17 percent for
its inventory data as a whole; that is, the United Kingdom was 95 percent
confident that total emissions were between 17 percent less and 17 percent
more than the total of about 660,452 gigagrams of carbon dioxide
equivalent it estimated for the year. In contrast, using the more
sophisticated method, the United Kingdom reported an uncertainty value of
13 percent, indicating it was 95 percent confident that total emissions
were between 13 percent less and 13 percent more than the year's total
estimate.
According to the EPA official responsible for compiling the 2003 U.S.
inventory, the high, medium, and low categorizations reflect the early
days of developing inventories, before the IPCC had developed its good
practice
guidance on quantitative methods. Prior to the guidance, the parties
recognized that nations would vary in their ability to perform
quantitative uncertainty analysis. The parties instituted the three-part
categorization in an effort to obtain information that was comparable
across nations that were using different methods for assessing data
uncertainty. The parties have moved to the quantitative methods because
the three-part categorization approach yielded limited information about
data uncertainty. For example, a nation could have uncertainty estimates
of 35 percent and 60 percent but could have categorized both estimates as
medium. The quantitative estimates provide information about the
uncertainty of the various components of the inventory, thereby helping
nations identify areas in which improvements would have the greatest
effect on the accuracy of the inventory as a whole. In addition, the
quantified estimates make the uncertainty analyses more consistent and
understandable across nations. According to the Secretariat, the
quantified uncertainty analysis also better enables expert reviewers to
determine if nations are targeting their improvements in the appropriate
areas.
The Parties Are Taking To improve the quality of data on greenhouse gas
emissions, the parties to
the Framework Convention are refining their requirements for both
AnnexSteps to Improve the I and non-Annex I nations. In addition, they are
bolstering the review Quality of Emissions processes for Annex I nations.
The changes are to begin to take effect over Data the next few years. The
parties currently have no plans to change the way
that non-Annex I nations' inventories are assessed.
Changes in Requirements for Annex I and Non-Annex I Nations Take Effect over
the Next Few Years
The parties have revised their requirements for both Annex I and non-Annex
I nations, with the changes taking effect over the next few years. The
revisions fall mainly into two areas: procedures for estimating emissions
and procedures for reporting those estimates.
The parties have revised both the estimating and reporting requirements
for Annex I nations. Regarding estimating, for example, beginning with the
2004 submissions, Annex I nations will be required to use both the 1996
IPCC estimating guidelines and the 2000 IPCC good practice guidance.
Previously, Annex I nations were required to use only the 1996 estimating
guidance and were encouraged, but not required, to use the good practice
guidance. Regarding reporting, the parties have specified in greater
detail than before the information that should be included in Annex I
nations' national inventory reports and in the data tables in the common
reporting
format. For example, nations should include explanations of how they
recalculated their previous years' data and, as previously discussed, the
methods they used to quantify their confidence in the data in their
national inventory reports. In their reports, nations should document that
they prepared their estimates in accordance with the IPCC good practice
guidance or explain why they did not; for example, an explanation is
required if they used a more sophisticated methodology than that specified
in the guidance. The nations should also cross-reference the information
in the national inventory report to explain the estimates reported in the
data tables. Furthermore, Annex I nations must submit their national
inventory reports following a specified format designed to facilitate
review of the inventories.
The parties also revised the reporting requirements for non-Annex I
nations that submit inventories in 2003 or later. Non-Annex I nations that
had not submitted an inventory prior to 2003 must include data in their
initial inventories for either 1990 or 1994 to establish an inventory
baseline. Those submitting their second inventories should provide data
for 2000 as well. This is in contrast to the requirement that Annex I
nations submit data for all years, from 1990 to the present. Similarly,
the parties specified that non-Annex I nations should report data for
carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide and encouraged reporting of the
other three gases- hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur
hexafluoride. In contrast, Annex I nations are required to report data for
all six gases. According to the manager of the 2003 U.S. inventory, the
estimating and reporting requirements for non-Annex I nations are less
demanding to encourage those nations to report because those nations
generally have fewer resources available for reporting.
In addition, the parties have requested that the IPCC continue to improve
its guidance on estimating. Currently, the good practice guidance does not
address estimating emissions and removals for the land-use change and
forestry sector. According to the EPA official who managed the 2003 U.S.
inventory, the IPCC deferred guidance on estimating emissions and removals
because it was developing a special report on them, which was subsequently
published in 2000. On the basis of that report, the IPCC began drafting
new good practice guidance for estimating emissions and removals for the
land-use change and forestry sector, which is due to be completed in late
2003. As part of this effort, the IPCC is also refining the data tables
for the land-use change and forestry sector. In addition, according to the
same EPA official, the IPCC is merging the 1996 guidelines with its good
practice guidance and expects to complete the effort by 2007.
The Parties Are Bolstering the Review Process for Annex I Nations, but Not
for Other Nations
The parties are strengthening the expert review process for Annex I
nations' submissions by conducting more reviews and standardizing the
review processes. Beginning with the 2003 submissions, each of the 39
Annex I nations will undergo one of the three types of expert reviews each
year: an in-country review once every 5 years and either a desk review or
a centralized review in each of the intervening years. This requirement
contrasts with the practices of the past 3 years, when the experts
performed from 8 to 21 expert reviews in a year. Furthermore, to
standardize the reviews, the parties have spelled out, in greater detail
than before, the elements that are to be examined during reviews and have
developed a standardized format for reporting the results of the reviews.
In addition, according to EPA inventory managers, in another effort to
make the expert reviews more uniform, the Secretariat is developing a
handbook and a training program for the expert reviewers and has specified
the composition and responsibilities of the teams of expert reviewers.
According to the Secretariat, the parties have no plans to change the
assessment process for non-Annex I nations' inventories, but the new
reporting guidance for non-Annex I nations would facilitate changes to the
assessment process, should the parties decide to institute them.
Scope and Methodology
To examine the results of the most recent expert reviews of the greenhouse
gas inventories submitted by the four economically developed nations
included in our study-Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United
States-we reviewed and analyzed the Secretariat's status reports showing
the results of its initial reviews (called stage 1 reviews by the
Secretariat) of the most recently submitted inventories (2003). We also
reviewed the reports on the parties' most recent expert reviews (called
indepth reviews by the Secretariat) of the four nations' inventories (2000
for Japan, 2000 and 2002 for the United Kingdom, 2000 for the United
States, and 2001 for Germany) and related documentation on reporting
requirements and review processes issued by the Secretariat. We
interviewed officials at EPA who manage the U.S. greenhouse gas inventory
and serve as inventory experts for the parties, as well as officials from
the State Department's Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental
and Scientific Affairs who are responsible for policy issues related to
the Framework Convention. In addition, we reviewed and analyzed the
limited information provided to us by the Secretariat in response to
questions we posed.
To describe the results of any assessments of inventories of the three
developing nations included in our study-China, India, and Mexico-we
reviewed and analyzed the Secretariat's reports on its assessments of
inventories submitted by non-Annex I nations, including the latest
inventory submitted by Mexico (2001); related documentation on non-Annex I
nation reporting requirements and assessment processes; and other
Secretariat information documenting which non-Annex I nations have
submitted inventories. We also interviewed the officials at EPA and the
Department of Energy who are most familiar with the three nations' efforts
to compile and report their inventories, as well as the cognizant
officials from the State Department.
To determine the extent to which the developed nations have confidence in
their data, we analyzed the confidence information each nation provided in
its 2003 submission. To describe any changes in assessing confidence in
the data that are to take effect in the future, we examined documentation
from the Secretariat and the relevant sections of the four developed
nations' 2003 submissions.
To describe the steps the parties are taking to improve the quality of
future inventory data and determine when those improvements might be in
place, we reviewed and analyzed documentation of the parties' new
estimating, reporting, and review requirements; interviewed cognizant EPA
officials; and reviewed and analyzed the limited information on this issue
submitted to us by the Secretariat in response to questions we posed.
We performed our work between November 2002 and November 2003 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Agency Comments We provided a draft of this report to the Secretary of
State, the Administrator of EPA, and the Framework Convention Secretariat
for review and comment. EPA provided clarifying comments, which we
incorporated where appropriate. We did not receive comments from the State
Department or the Framework Convention Secretariat.
As arranged with your offices, we plan no further distribution of this
report until 30 days after the date of this letter, unless you publicly
announce its contents earlier. At that time, we will send copies of this
report to interested congressional committees; the Chairmen and Ranking
Minority
Members, Senate Committee on Appropriations, House Committee on
Appropriations, Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, and House
Committee on Government Reform; the EPA Administrator; and the Secretary
of State. We will make copies available upon request to other interested
parties. This report will also be available at no cost on GAO's Web site
at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please call me
at (202) 512-3841. I can also be reached at [email protected]. Key
contributors to this report are listed in appendix II.
John B. Stephenson Director, Natural Resources
and Environment
Appendix I
Results of Expert Reviews of the Four Developed Nations' Inventories
The six expert review reports we examined did not follow identical
formats; however, they generally highlighted the experts' findings and
suggestions for improvement in a summary section at the beginning of each
report. The experts noted instances of noncompliance with the reporting
requirements. In addition, the experts noted some instances in which the
nations did not comply with the Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty
Management in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, even though following
the good practice guidance was not a requirement at the time that the
inventories were submitted. The summary-level findings and suggestions for
each of the six expert reviews we examined are listed in table 3.
Appendix I Results of Expert Reviews of the Four Developed Nations' Inventories
Table 3: Results of the Most Recent Expert Reviews of the Four Developed
Nations' Inventories
Expert review Findings Suggestions for improvement
Centralized review of Germany's inventory submitted in 2001
Inventory did not conform to Secretariat's guidelines; specifically, it
did not include the following:
o sector-specific data,
o a national inventory report,
o required information on major sources of emissions,
o recalculated data for previous years or explanation of recalculations,
o quantitative uncertainty estimates nor a qualitative discussion of
reasons for uncertainty,
o procedures on quality assurance,
o inventory in specified software format,
o information on how the nation develops and manages its inventory, and
o information on ongoing efforts to improve the quality of its inventory.
Inventory was submitted after the deadline.
Inventory did not include information on any improvements made in response
to problems identified with previous inventories.
Submit national inventory report with a brief explanation of methodologies
and underlying assumptions that were used to compile the inventory.
Compile a complete emissions inventory for all of the required years and
sectors.
Centralized review of Japan's Inventory did not conform to Secretariat's
guidelines; Improve documentation. inventory submitted in 2000
specifically, it did not include the following:
o a national inventory report and Submit a national inventory report to
explain
o recalculated data for previous years. methods used to estimate
emissions.
Inventory did not contain information needed to determine Improve the
consistency of the data and
completeness of sources of emissions for the industrial information
provided.
processes sector.
In-country review of the United Inventory did not completely conform to
Secretariat's Kingdom's inventory guidelines; specifically, the United
Kingdom did not submitted in 2000 o provide the national inventory
report on time;
o apply the Secretariat's good practice guidance;
o provide required details for the waste and the land-use change and
forestry sectors;
o include required calculations and disaggregated activity data for the
sectors;
o explain rationale for assumptions used for emission estimates;
o use consistent assumptions and methods to report timeseries information
for sources of emissions in the industrial processes sector;
o include information on quality assurance procedures; and
o include required information on sources of and methods for estimating
hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride.
Archive documentation supporting the national inventory report in one
location or on the Web.
Publish findings from research on improving estimates.
Perform quality assurance procedures for emissions data from industry.
Report emissions and removals separately.
Appendix I Results of Expert Reviews of the Four Developed Nations' Inventories
(Continued From Previous Page)
Expert review Findings Suggestions for improvement
Desk review of the No findings were Attempt to include estimates for
United noted. data
Kingdom's inventory categories not yet included.
submitted in 2002
Provide more specific information in
the
national inventory report on how the
consistency of emissions data over
time was
achieved.
Desk review of the United States's inventory submitted in The information
included in the data tables was somewhat inconsistent with the information
included in the national inventory report.
The data tables did not include recalculations; however, the national
inventory report included information on revised methodologies and updated
data that were used for recalculations.
The inventory did not include information on the quality assurance
procedures that were used.
The inventory did not include information on the quality of estimates in
the data tables.
For more complete and transparent reporting in the land-use change and
forestry sector,
o include a description of methods used for estimating carbon dioxide
removals in forest soils and landfills;
o provide more explanation on factors used to estimate carbon dioxide
removals in the forest floor, understory vegetation, and harvested wood
products; and
o include data on emissions and removals from abandonment of managed
lands and nonforest organic mineral soils.
In-country review of the United States's inventory submitted in
The information included in the data tables was somewhat inconsistent with
the information included in the national inventory report.
The data were estimated using complex methods and models that required
data at a more detailed level than was provided.
Although the national inventory report contained some information on
quantitative and qualitative indications of uncertainties for emissions
sources, the estimates were not complete.
The national inventory report provided no specific information on
verification and quality assurance procedures.
Apply quality assurance procedures to all sectors.
Source: GAO analysis of expert reviews.
Appendix II
GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
GAO Contacts John B. Stephenson, (202) 512-3841 David Marwick, (202)
512-6775
Staff Acknowledgments
(360277)
In addition to the individuals named above, Simin Ho and Karla Springer
made key contributions to this report. Nancy Crothers, Sandra Edwards,
Barbara Johnson, Karen Keegan, Andria Key, Charlotte Moore, Chris
Moriarity, Katherine Raheb, and Anne Rhodes-Kline also made important
contributions.
GAO's Mission The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its
constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and
accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO
examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies;
and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help
Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's
commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
is through the Internet. GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts
and fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding
archive of older products. The Web site features a search engine to help
you locate documents using key words and phrases. You can print these
documents in their entirety, including charts and other graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files.
To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and
select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order GAO Products"
heading.
Order by Mail or Phone The first copy of each printed report is free.
Additional copies are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out
to the Superintendent of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard.
Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25
percent. Orders should be sent to:
U.S. General Accounting Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington, D.C.
20548
To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061
To Report Fraud, Contact: Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
Waste, and Abuse in E-mail: [email protected]
Federal Programs Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202)
512-7470
Public Affairs Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, [email protected] (202)
512-4800 U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548
Presorted Standard
Postage & Fees Paid
GAO
Permit No. GI00
United States
General Accounting Office
Washington, D.C. 20548-0001
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
Address Service Requested
*** End of document. ***