CCXG Global Forum October 2018 Breakout Group D by JM. Medina Aguilar

1. Mexico´s Reporting and Review Process
CCXG Global Forum 9 October 2018

2. Proposed discussion
questions
 1. How have previous reviews
facilitated improvements in
reporting?
 2. Could future reviews assess
a Party’s implementation and
achievement of its NDC, and
if so, how would this be done?

4. 2018
2015-2017 INEGYCEI 1990-2015
1995-2012 1005-2012, 2013, 2014
and 2015 inventories
were developed
2006 IPCC methodology
5 Inventories were
developed
1996, 2000, 2003 and
2006 IPCC methodology
TIER 2 and AFOLU
1996 IPCC methodology 1990-2012 historic
series (TIER 1)
Uncertainty calculation
and
INEGYCEI 2013 with
disaggregated data
Some emission factors
corresponding only to
Mexico
Quality control
Pre IPCC 2006 migration Socialization of
methodology and results

5. National Communication
1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th
Topics and data contained
Energy and Industry. Energy. 2002 general Outlook. GHG due to gas. Institutional arrangements.
Agriculture and change
in land use.
Fuels (Fixed sources). GHG per category 2002. Categorized GHG . Process for GHG inventory
preparation and methodology
aspects.
Solid waste disposal. Fuels (Transportation). GHG trends per gas type. GHG trends from 1990-2006. General Outlook.
GHG from leaks. Indirect GHG data. Reference methodology and
per sector.
Black carbon emission
calculation for 1990-2010.
Agriculture. Reference methodology and per
sector.
GHG from international
aircrafts and sea vessels.
GHG emission per gas.
Changes in land use. GHG from international aircrafts
and sea vessels.
International comparison. GHG per category.
Industrial processes. Key sources. GHG trends from 1990-2010.
Waste. Level of confidence. GHG indicators.
Future emission
projections(Historical
data based on the
International comparison. International comparison.
National Inventories Comparison
Presented to the UNFCCC

6. Government
Institutions
Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (SEMARNAT)
Ministry of Energy (SENER)
Ministry of Economy
Ministry of Communications and Transportation
Ministry of Agriculture
State Governments
Research Institutions Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM)
Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana (UAM)
National Institute of Forest and Agriculture Research
Others National Institute of Statistics and Geography (INEGI)
State-owned
Companies
PEMEX
National Commission of Electricity(CFE)
Chambers and
Associations
National chamber of iron and steel
National chamber of cement
National chamber of paper and cardboard
Chemistry
Glass
National chamber of livestock
Institutions supplying data

9. 21. The results of the technical analysis are presented in the remainder of this chapter.
1. Information on national circumstances and institutional arrangements relevant to the preparation of
national communications on a continuous basis
22. As per the scope defined in paragraph 2 of the UNFCCC reporting guidelines on BURs, the BUR should
provide an update to the information contained in the most recently submitted national communications,
including, among other things, information on national circumstances and institutional arrangements relevant
to the preparation of national communications on a continuous basis. For their national communications, non-
Annex I Parties report on their national circumstances following reporting guidance contained in decision
17/CP.8, annex, paragraphs 3–5.
23. In accordance with decision 17/CP.8, annex, paragraph 3, Mexico, in its BUR, reported on the following
elements of its national circumstances, on the basis of which it will address climate change and its adverse
impacts and/or which may affect its ability to address them: geographical characteristics, vulnerability,
ecosystems, demography, economy, energy, transport, industry, the forestry sector, the agriculture sector, the
waste sector, socioeconomic issues and its contribution to global GHG emissions.
24. Mexico provided maps, graphs and tables to summarize and illustrate the most relevant information
regarding its national circumstances, including information on the structure of energy consumption in the
country, agricultural production, population and waste generation rate. This information transparently
describes its national circumstances, in particular the biophysical, demographic, political and economic
features of Mexico.

10. 25. Mexico described in its BUR the institutional arrangements relevant to the preparation of its national
communications and BURs on a continuous basis. The description covers key aspects of the institutional arrangements,
such as the national policy framework for climate change issues, the specific arrangements implemented at the national
and regional levels and the roles and responsibilities of the overall coordinating entity and existing inter-institutional
coordination mechanisms that are relevant to the national communication and BUR processes.
26. Regarding the national policy framework, Mexico provided information on the two key legal instruments that are
the foundation for the institutional arrangements of the country: the Ley General de Cambio Climático and the Plan
Nacional de Desarrollo y Reformas Estructurales (2013–2018). The institutional arrangements described in the BUR
within this national legal policy framework are: La Comisión Intersecretarial de Cambio Climático (Instituto Nacional
de Ecología y Cambio Climático (INECC), el Consejo de Cambio Climático (la Estrategia Nacional de Cambio
Climático ((ENCC), el programa Especial de Cambio Climático 2014–2018 ((PECC) and Sistema Nacional de Cambio
Climático.
27. Mexico also provided information on institutional arrangements implemented by regional entities, which have to
elaborate climate change programmes that are coherent with the aforementioned national legal policy framework.
Further, the entities are required to elaborate information on GHG source categories in their jurisdiction in order to
integrate that information into the national inventory system.

11. https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2016/tasr/mex.pdf
Link to Mexico´s TER of its 1st BUR

12. Topic INEGYCEI’s 1st BUR INEGYCEI 1990-2015
Methodology Energy IPCC 1996
Industry IPCC 1996
Agriculture IPCC 1996
USCUSS IPCC 2000 & 2003
Waste IPCC 2006
GHG estimations from all sectors under IPCC
2006.
Vintages 1990-2012 time series and 2013 data presented.
ICA suggestions:
“Each non Annex-1 country is encouraged to present
chronological series according to their previous
national communications.
ICA reports the country’s report didn’t present
coherent timelines for all the given categories of the
GHG national inventories.”
New 1990-2015 historic series applying the
same methodology. Therefore we have
comparability and consistency of emissions
through the whole process.
Results according
to IPCC
guidelines
1990-2012 historical series using IPCC, 1996
classification
INEGYCEI 2013 under the following classification:
Mobile sources
Electricity generation
Oil and gas
Industry
Agriculture
Waste disposal
Land use
Residential and commercial
Homogenization of classification per sector,
categories, subcategories and sources under
IPCC, 2006 in a consistent fashion for the
time series1990-2015 In accordance to
decision to /CP.17 Annex III, paragraphs 6
and 7 and to the recommendations included
in the “contra report” contained in the
international review.
Improvements to the update of the national GHG emissions
inventories (INEGYCEI) with respect to the last inventory presented
before the UNFCCC

13. Topic INEGYCEI’s 1st BUR INEGYCEI 1990-2015
Emission factors 1) 1990-2012 historic series with co2 factors
established in the IPCC, 1996 related to
fuel consumption.
2) INEGYCEI 2013 with AP-46 emission factor
from the EPA, USA.
According to the ICA, the emission factors are
reported partially due to the use of both self
and standard emission factors only for certain
sectors.
The factor were used consistently through the whole
time period. For CO2 emissions, 47% where estimated
with our country specific factors, the rest was
estimated with standard factors.
For CO2 from fuel consumption for energy
generation, the project “Emission factors for
different fossil and alternative fuels used in Mexico”
emission factors where used. This represents 63 % of
the total emissions of the inventory.
Methane (CH4) and coal burned related to agriculture
emission factors were taken from the study “CO2,
PM2.5, PM10, short life pollutants, methane and coal
from agricultural activities emission factors
determination”(Study developed by INECC.
In case of absence of country specific emission
factors, the established emission factors from IPCC
2006 where used.

14. Topic INEGYCEI’s 1st BUR INEGYCEI 1990-2015
Relevant activities data INEGYCEI 1990-2013 activity data.
The “country report” in accordance with
decision 17/CP.8 annex, paragraph 21,
indicates that non annex-I countries will
present information on the methodologies used
for the estimation of anthropogenic sources of
emission and GHG capture not controlled by
the Montreal protocol.
ICA mentioned that the information on activity
data and emission factor used was included in
the BUR. However there was no information on
the level of methods used.
TIER described in Annexes.
Improved activity data identified as T1/T2.
New data was gathered for the historical series
according to the IPCC 2006 for GHG estimation.
Information and feedback on emissions calculation and
the methodology used was communicated to the
industry through workshops.
In the case of HFC’s, the information was gathered
through a survey, and an estimation made I the study
that was done by the Ozone Protection Unit.
A survey was made in 2015 to gather information on
wasteland fields, used to update the study generated
in 2013.
Key category analysis No analysis presented. Key category analysis (level 1 and 2) performed.
Level of confidence
calculation
No level of confidence analysis presented. The confidence estimation for the 2015 series was
performed and presented, as well as its propagation
through the 1990-2015 series under the following
considerations:
• Level of uncertainty associated with inventory
data.
• Assumed inventories.
• Methodology used.

15. Topic INEGYCEI’s 1st BUR INEGYCEI 1990-2015
Socialization of the
methodology and its
outcomes
The INEGYCEI development
process was done within the
INECC with official data publicly
available.
A number of workshops were arranged in order
to gather information first hand from the main
GHG emitters.
Technical task groups were created in:
• Sector from the grey and green agenda
• PEMEX
• National Forestry Commission
Technical work meetings were conducted with:
• Iron and steel national chamber
• Concrete national chamber
• Paper national chamber
• SIAP from SAGARPA
• National livestock identification system
Quality assurance No quality assurance was
presented in the first BUR.
Quality assurance system is being developed in
2018 integrating international “best
practices”. Will be concluded in 2018 and will
be subject to review from the GHG inventories
experts and involved sectors (Energy, waste
disposal and industrial processes).

16. Mexico’s Experience with
technical reviews
• Use of guidelines
(Handbook) for
technical review
• Technical
feedback to
Parties
Review of
National GHG
Emission
Inventories
• Technical
analysis of
content
• Facilitative
sharing of views
Review of 1st
Biennial
Update Report
(BUR)
• Gain knowledge on technical
components to be improved
• Adjust GHG inventory preparation
process
• Refine roles and responsibilities
• Identify training needs
• Plan improvements
• Prepare domestic QA/QC
procedures
Lessons learned
• Identify elements needed for more robust,
transparent, and certain information
• Refine roles and responsibilities in the BUR
process
• Plan improvements to BUR preparation
• Identify key messages of progress and
achievements
• Communication of progress more clearly

17. Expected
situation under
an Enhanced
Transparency
Framework
 Transparency of action and of support
as backbone of Paris Agreement
 More reports will be received in the
UNFCCC Secretariat, based on what
Parties agree for the implementation of
the Paris Agreement
 Scope and content of [transparency]
reports under discussion but existing
reporting requirements under the
UNFCCC are a relevant start…
 Operational aspect: Experiences and
lessons learned to date with technical
reviews, conformation of review
teams, guidelines and review tools and
materials, etc. may ease the process of
defining what to include and how to
conduct reviews

18. Expected
situation under
an Enhanced
Transparency
Framework
 How to make the TER more operational?
 Facilitative nature with clear feedback to
Parties
 Will all Parties have the capabilities to report
under the ETF if they lack reporting and review
experience?
 Should Parties be more proactive in presenting
candidates to the Roster of Experts / Reviewers?
 How to close the gap on reporting and review?
 Should Parties start with National
Communications, National GHG Inventories
Reports, or Biennial Update Reports before
preparing and submitting a Transparency
Report?
 Should reporting be staged (i.e. a step-wise
approach based on capabilities)?
 How to handle the additional requirements from
more reports?
 Are we creating an additional burden for
Parties, in an attempt to have more information
on progress and achievements?

19. Closing discussion questions
 How will the TER handle the large
expected increase in the volume of
delivered reports?
 Which mechanism is required to
foster more national experts in the
roster and develop their capacities
internationally to bring back their
expertise nationally?

20. MUCHAS
GRACIAS