Climate Change
Selected Nations' Reports on Greenhouse Gas Emissions Varied in Their Adherence to Standards Gao ID: GAO-04-98 December 23, 2003In 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.
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.
GAO-04-98, Climate Change: Selected Nations' Reports on Greenhouse Gas Emissions Varied in Their Adherence to Standards
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-04-98
entitled 'Climate Change: Selected Nations' Reports on Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Varied in Their Adherence to Standards' which was released on
January 23, 2004.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a
longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
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. 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.
Report to Congressional Requesters:
December 2003:
CLIMATE CHANGE:
Selected Nations' Reports on Greenhouse Gas Emissions Varied in Their
Adherence to Standards:
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-98] GAO-04-98:
GAO Highlights:
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
Why GAO Did This Study:
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.
What GAO Found:
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.
What GAO Recommends:
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 stephensonj@gao.gov.
[End of section]
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:
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Results of Expert Reviews of the Four Developed Nations'
Inventories:
Appendix II: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Comparative Statistics of the Seven Nations in Our Study:
Table 2: Four Developed Nations' Ratings of Confidence in Their Data
for Total Emissions in 2001:
Table 3: Results of the Most Recent Expert Reviews of the Four
Developed Nations' Inventories:
Figures:
Figure 1: Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Developed and Developing Nations
and Nations with Economies in Transition, 1970 through 2025, Actual and
Projected:
Figure 2: Carbon Dioxide Emissions for the Seven Nations in Our Study,
Actual and Projected:
Abbreviations:
EIA: Energy Information Administration:
EPA: Environmental Protection Agency:
IPCC: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change:
Letter
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.[Footnote 1] The nations also agreed to
periodically report on their greenhouse gas emissions.[Footnote 2]
As of November 2003, 188 parties had ratified the Framework Convention,
including the United States.[Footnote 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),[Footnote 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
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:
[See PDF for image]
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.
[End of figure]
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:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
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:
Nation: Economically developed nations.
Nation: Germany; Estimated population: 2002 (millions): Economically
developed nations: 83.3; Per capita income, 2001 or 2002: Economically
developed nations: $26,600 (2002).
Nation: Japan; Estimated population: 2002 (millions): Economically
developed nations: 127.0; Per capita income, 2001 or 2002: Economically
developed nations: 28,000 (2002).
Nation: United Kingdom; Estimated population: 2002 (millions):
Economically developed nations: 60.0; Per capita income, 2001 or 2002:
Economically developed nations: 25,300 (2002).
Nation: United States; Estimated population: 2002 (millions):
Economically developed nations: 281.0; Per capita income, 2001 or 2002:
Economically developed nations: 36,300 (2001).
Nation: Economically developing nations.
Nation: China; Estimated population: 2002 (millions): Economically
developed nations: 1,284.3; Per capita income, 2001 or 2002:
Economically developed nations: 4,600 (2002).
Nation: India; Estimated population: 2002 (millions): Economically
developed nations: 1,045.8; Per capita income, 2001 or 2002:
Economically developed nations: 2,540 (2002).
Nation: Mexico; Estimated population: 2002 (millions): Economically
developed nations: 103.4; Per capita income, 2001 or 2002: Economically
developed nations: 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.
[End of table]
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
[human-caused] emissions" of greenhouse gases not covered by another
treaty, the Montreal Protocol.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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.
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.[Footnote 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 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 in-country 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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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,[Footnote 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.
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.[Footnote 11]
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:
Gigagrams of carbon dioxide equivalent:
Nation: Germany:
Amount rated high: 948,175;
Percentage rated high: 93.1;
Amount rated medium: 59,054;
Percentage rated medium: 5.8;
Amount rated low: 7,982;
Percentage rated low: 0.8;
Amount not rated: 3,817;
Percentage not rated: 0.4.
Nation: Japan:
Amount rated high: 1,244,048;
Percentage rated high: 95.7;
Amount rated medium: 20,056;
Percentage rated medium: 1.5;
Amount rated low: 35,326;
Percentage rated low: 2.7;
Amount not rated: 15;
Percentage not rated: 0[A].
Nation: United Kingdom:
Amount rated high: 561,274;
Percentage rated high: 82.9;
Amount rated medium: 53,907;
Percentage rated medium: 8.0;
Amount rated low: 62,036;
Percentage rated low: 9.2;
Amount not rated: 12;
Percentage not rated: 0[A].
Nation: United States:
Amount rated high: 5,670,596;
Percentage rated high: 72.9;
Amount rated medium: 1,462,157;
Percentage rated medium: 18.8;
Amount rated low: 567,775;
Percentage rated low: 7.3;
Amount not rated: 73,816;
Percentage not rated: 1.0.
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.
[A] Percentage is less than .005 and rounds to 0.
[End of table]
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 Steps to Improve the Quality of Emissions Data:
To improve the quality of data on greenhouse gas emissions, the parties
to the Framework Convention are refining their requirements for both
Annex I and non-Annex I nations. In addition, they are bolstering the
review processes for Annex I nations. The changes are to begin to take
effect over 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 in-depth 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 [Hyperlink, 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 [Hyperlink,
stephensonj@gao.gov]. Key contributors to this report are listed in
appendix II.
John B. Stephenson:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
Signed by John B. Stephenson:
[End of section]
Appendixes:
[End of section]
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.
Table 3: Results of the Most Recent Expert Reviews of the Four
Developed Nations' Inventories:
Expert review: Centralized review of Germany's inventory submitted in
2001;
Findings: Inventory did not conform to Secretariat's guidelines;
specifically, it did not include the following:
* sector-specific data;
* a national inventory report;
* required information on major sources of emissions;
* recalculated data for previous years or explanation of
recalculations;
* quantitative uncertainty estimates nor a qualitative discussion of
reasons for uncertainty;
* procedures on quality assurance;
* inventory in specified software format;
* information on how the nation develops and manages its inventory,
and;
* 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;
Suggestions for improvement: 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.
Expert review: Centralized review of Japan's inventory submitted in
2000;
Findings: Inventory did not conform to Secretariat's guidelines;
specifically, it did not include the following:
* a national inventory report and;
* recalculated data for previous years; Inventory did not contain
information needed to determine completeness of sources of emissions
for the industrial processes sector;
Suggestions for improvement: Improve documentation; Submit a national
inventory report to explain methods used to estimate emissions;
Improve the consistency of the data and information provided.
Expert review: In-country review of the United Kingdom's inventory
submitted in 2000;
Findings: Inventory did not completely conform to Secretariat's
guidelines; specifically, the United Kingdom did not;
* provide the national inventory report on time;
* apply the Secretariat's good practice guidance;
* provide required details for the waste and the land-use change and
forestry sectors;
* include required calculations and disaggregated activity data for
the sectors;
* explain rationale for assumptions used for emission estimates;
* use consistent assumptions and methods to report time-series
information for sources of emissions in the industrial processes
sector;
* include information on quality assurance procedures; and;
* include required information on sources of and methods for
estimating hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur
hexafluoride;
Suggestions for improvement: 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.
Expert review: Desk review of the United Kingdom's inventory submitted
in 2002;
Findings: No findings were noted;
Suggestions for improvement: Attempt to include estimates for data
categories not yet included; Provide more specific information in the
national inventory report on how the consistency of emissions data
over time was achieved.
Expert review: Desk review of the United States's inventory submitted
in 2000;
Findings: 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;
Suggestions for improvement: For more complete and transparent
reporting in the land- use change and forestry sector;
* include a description of methods used for estimating carbon dioxide
removals in forest soils and landfills;
* provide more explanation on factors used to estimate carbon dioxide
removals in the forest floor, understory vegetation, and harvested
wood products; and;
* include data on emissions and removals from abandonment of managed
lands and nonforest organic mineral soils.
Expert review: In-country review of the United States's inventory
submitted in 2000;
Findings: 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;
Suggestions for improvement: Apply quality assurance procedures to all
sectors.
[End of table]
Source: GAO analysis of expert reviews.
[End of section]
Appendix II: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
John B. Stephenson, (202) 512-3841 David Marwick, (202) 512-6775:
Staff Acknowledgments:
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.
(360277):
FOOTNOTES
[1] The five other gases are methane, nitrous oxide,
hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur dioxide.
[2] In 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.
[3] We 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.
[4] Established 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.
[5] The 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.
[6] According 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.
[7] Five Annex I nations with economies in transition--Bulgaria,
Hungary, Poland, Romania, and Slovenia--are allowed to use other years
as baselines.
[8] Annex 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.
[9] According 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.
[10] In 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.
[11] According 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.
GAO's Mission:
The General Accounting Office, the 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 full-text 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, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S.
General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.
20548:
