Review arrangements practical improvement ideas for a potential future annual review

Transcription

1 Review arrangements practical improvement ideas for a potential future annual review Melanie Sporer, François Dejean and Martin Adams, EEA EIONET workshop EEA, Copenhagen 22 October 2012

2 Outline I/ General approach of the 2012 Technical Review quick reminder II/ Summary of Stage 3 review process, communication process and consultation with Member States III/ MS feedback and possible improvements from the Review Secretariat s perspective IV/ MS feedback and possible improvements from the projects team s perspective (TERT) 2012 technical review under the EU Effort Sharing Decision EIONET workshop, EEA, Copenhagen 22 October 2012

3 Summary technical review steps 15 Jan-15 Mar EU- MMD submission 15 Apr UNFCCC submission 15 Apr UNFCCC data incl. re-submissions to 15 May Extended initial checks Desk review initial questions to MS from TERT Centralised review additional questions from TERT Draft review report MS take note of findings MS replies MS replies MS take note of findings and can provide comments on report Review reports to Commission (and MS) Country visits (4) Bilateral discussions: Commission and MS ESD technical review: Preparatory workshop for reviewers April, 2012

4 Consultation with Member States Process: Initial questions -> Response to Questions -> Teleconference -> Technical Correction/MS Revision -> Response to Technical Corrections/MS revisions - > Country Visit -> Review Report Number of contact rounds between TERT and MS Minimum = 5 Maximum = 11 4 MS visited UK SK SI SE RO PT PL NL MT LV LU LI IT IE HU HR GR FR FI ES EE DK DE CZ CY BG BE AT Initial questions & Responses Technical Corrections & MS Revisions Teleconference Country visit Review Report

5 Communication process: desk review and centralised review 252 Transcripts: 9 categories 27+1 countries SE (18) Identify relevant questions LR (4) TL Quality-control questions Qualitycontrol and number questions Q&A Master file EEA Review Secretariat Archive Q&A s Quality-control questions Maintain Q&A master file Compile questions for countries Compile replies for TERTs Document Q&A progress Communicate indications for technical corrections or irregularities to MS (DG CLIMA) DG CLIMA 27+1 Q&A Country sheets MS (27+1) Provide answers

6 Q&A Over 900 questions and answers with countries from the desk and centralised reviews UK SK SI SE RO PT PL NL MT LV LU LT IT IE HU HR GR FR FI ES EE DK DE CZ CY BG BE AT A3 Transport + 1C International bunkers 1B Fugitive 2A Mineral Products + 2B Chemical Industry + Solvents 2C Metal Production + 2D + 2G 2E Production of Halocarbons and SF6 + 2F Consumption of Halocarbons and SF6 4A Enteric Fermentation + 4B Manure Management 4C - 4F Stationary combustion (1A1, 1A2, 1A4, 1A5) + reference approach Waste

7 Feedback and possible improvements: Timing of the communication process MS feedback: The review weeks were most demanding (availability of all MS experts, planning of summer holidays) Would have been good to get the recommendations earlier in the process Possible improvement ideas: Timestamp of question: date when sent to MS than date when TERT started to work on draft finding Set dates for the review a long time in advance to ensure availability of MS experts Provision of feedback on recommendations/revised estimates at an earlier stage (before draft review report was sent)

8 Feedback and possible improvements: Communication tools and templates MS feedback: Would have been preferred getting some feedback to responses, especially those which were later on addressed in the review report as recommendations In principle the [question and answer sheet] is fine, but at the end of the process there were still questions indicated as partly resolved although they seemed solved. Possible improvement ideas from countries : Include feedback on recommendations/revised estimates at especially whether resolved/unresolved or approved/disapproved in the communication template The format for forwarding follow-up questions could be improved (more clearly highlighted, e.g. in colour) and should be used consistently throughout the sectors Faster feedback if the answers provided by MS resolved questions Web-based tool could be taken into consideration

9 Feedback and possible improvements: Efficiency of communication process Feedback: is quickly and easy to archive especially if supplemented by phone calls and web-based platform to exchange large documents Efficient and timely communication with coordinators Possible improvement ideas from countries : Calculation sheets could be sent to all MS and not only upon request Web-based tool could help streamline communications Better to take into account UNFCCC review

10

11 Break out groups A - room 027 B - room 131 C - room D conf. room Rayna Angelova (BG) Helen Champion (UK) Sorin Deaconu (RO, TERT) Paul Duffy (IE) Frida Loefstroem (SE) Agita Gancone (IT) Bernd Gugele (TERT) Laila Gumhalter Malic (HR) Kristina Kaar (ES) Gabor Kis-Kovacs (HU) Neringa Kisielyte (LT) Eva Krkova (CZ) Harry Vreuls (NL) Frédérique Millard (FR) Ondrej Minovsky (CZ) Anne Mändmets (EE) Ole-Kenneth Nielsen (DK, TERT) Anne Olecka (PL) Brindusa Paciurea (RO) Andzela Petersone (LV) Riita Pipatti (FI) Marlene Plejdrup (DK) Davod Poderoso (ES) Teresa Costa Pereira (PT) Joanna MacCarthy (UK) Louise Refalo (MT) Marc Schuman (LU) Katrin Seuss (TERT) Hanne Siikavirta (FI) Michael Strogies (DE) Janka Szemesova (SK) Dovile Vaitkute (LT) Ioannis Sempos (GR) Tadja Majaron (SI) Riccardo De Lauretis (IT) Antonio Ferreiro (ES) Melanie (EEA) François (EEA) Martin (EEA) Ricardo (EEA) 2012 technical review under the EU Effort Sharing Decision EIONET workshop, EEA, Copenhagen 22 October 2012

12 Discussion points for breakout groups Group Discussion points A, B, C Improving communications A, C, D Significance threshold for revised estimates? B, C, D Practical ideas to better link with UNFCCC review process? A, B, D Review follow up activities (e.g. EU actions - workshops, trainings?) A, B, C, D Other key issues or reflections? 2012 technical review under the EU Effort Sharing Decision EIONET workshop, EEA, Copenhagen 22 October 2012