23 February 2010
UNFCCC Secretariat Releases Individual Review of Luxembourg’s Annual Submission
story highlights

17 February 2010: The UNFCCC Secretariat has released the report of the individual review of the annual submission of Luxembourg submitted in 2009 (FCCC/ARR/2009/LUX).

The expert review team (ERT) finds that the inventory is generally in line with the Revised Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Guidelines, the IPCC good practice guidance, and the IPCC […]

17 February 2010: The UNFCCC Secretariat has released the report of the individual review of the annual submission of Luxembourg submitted in 2009 (FCCC/ARR/2009/LUX).

The expert review team (ERT) finds that the inventory is generally in line with the Revised Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Guidelines, the IPCC good practice guidance, and the IPCC Good Practice Guidance for Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF), with the exception of the omission of some categories (for instance in the industrial processes sector), the misallocation of some emissions in the energy sector, the lack of transparency of background information and of documentation supporting recalculations in the national inventory report (NIR) in some instances, and the lack of a complete uncertainty analysis covering all categories. The ERT commends Luxembourg for the significant improvement on the previous submission in the reporting of the LULUCF sector, the implementation of a quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) system and inventory improvement plan, and improvements in the transparency, completeness and timeseries consistency of the inventory.
During the review, the ERT expressed concern with regard to the fact that Luxembourg had submitted its 2009 inventory late, at the end of the six week “grace” period established by decision 15/CMP.1. In the report, the ERT further encourages Luxembourg to explore the possibility of structuring its reporting, in its next annual submission, following the annotated outline of the NIR, and the guidance contained therein. In the course of the review, the ERT also formulated a number of recommendations relating to the timeliness, the completeness, and the transparency of the submission. [The Report]