Review decision

Review decision

Expert review teams do not make decisions.

system projects (decision XIV 7)

Some people criticized our decision.

This additional information is to be reviewed in accordance with the relevant provisions of decision 23 CP.7, its appendices and the attached draft decision CMP.1.

The draft decision on guidance for review under Article 8 of the Kyoto Protocol is attached to decision 23 CP.7.

If it decides that the request has merit it shall perform a review and decide whether the proposed issuance of CERs should be approved The Executive Board shall complete its review within 30 days following its decision to perform the review The Executive Board shall inform the project participants of the outcome of the review, and make public its decision regarding the approval of the proposed issuance of CERs and the reasons for it.

The decision by the Board, including on the scope of a review and the composition of a review team, shall be made publicly available as part of the report of its meeting.

The Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol,

By its decision 1 COP.5, the Conference of the Parties (COP) decided to establish the Committee for the Review of the Implementation of the Convention (CRIC) as a subsidiary body to assist in its function of regularly reviewing the implementation of the Convention.

The recommendation was adopted without comment. (See annex, decision 2005 16, for the text of the Board's decision.

Recalling the provisions of decision 19 COP.6 on Land Degradation Assessment in Drylands (LADA),

Recalling decisions 23 CP.7, in particular paragraph 9 of the annex to draft decision CMP (Guidelines for review under Article 8 of the Kyoto Protocol) attached to that decision, 12 CP.9 and 21 CP.9,

By its decision 9 COP.6, the COP decided that the third session of the Committee for the Review of the Implementation of the Convention (CRIC 3) would review the implementation of the Convention in Africa.

The proposal was adopted without comment. (See annex, decision 2005 15, for the text of the Board's decision).

By decision 1 COP.5 establishing the CRIC, the COP decided that, at sessions held during the COP, the CRIC shall regularly review reports prepared by the secretariat on the execution of its functions.

As decided by decision 7 COP.6, the format of the CRIC should aim at becoming abe conducive to learning based interaction leading to a transparent and flexible implementation review.

Guidelines for review under Article 8 of the Kyoto Protocol 40

If it decides that the request has merit, it shall perform a review and decide whether the proposed issuance of CERs should be approved The Executive Board shall complete its review within 30 days following its decision to perform the review The Executive Board shall inform the project participants of the outcome of the review, and make public its decision regarding the approval of the proposed issuance of CERs and the reasons for it.

By its decision 1 COP.5, the Conference of the Parties (COP) decided that the Committee for the Review of the Implementation of the Convention (CRIC) shall regularly review reports prepared by the secretariat on the execution of its functions.

He hoped that history would judge positively the wisdom of the decisions taken.

It would be inappropriate to include a statement in the commentary that conflicted with that decision.

However, they make the technical assessments upon which decisions will be based.

As recalled by most Parties, the review of the implementation should be conducted in accordance with decisions 11 COP.1 (pProcedures for communication of information and review of implementation), decision 1 COP.5, containing the terms of reference of the CRIC and decision 7 COP.6 containing the criteria against which the mandate and functions of the CRIC should be reviewed.

The full report will be submitted to the Board at its first regular session 2006, with an accompanying Note by the Administrator.

Each initial report will be subject to review in accordance with the relevant provisions of draft decision CMP.1 (Article 8).

Draft decision CMP.1. Terms of service for lead reviewers 73

work, and the provision of guidance to it

Draft decision submitted by the Chairperson of the Committee

The essential point was that the assessment should be used as the basis for a decision on whether or not to continue with the Cooperation Agreement.

Recalling decision XII 8, which had invited TEAP to assess and evaluate links with the Basel Convention, representatives suggested that there was a need to coordinate activities between all the chemicals agreements.

The COP has recommended various decisions to the COP MOP regulating the way in which the expert review teams are to carry out their duties (e.g., decisions 23 CP.7 and 22 CP.8).

It is worth recalling that, in addition to the evaluations undertaken within individual projects, the Working Party decides which thematic programmes will be evaluated.

Decision 12 CP.9 promulgated a code of practice for the treatment of confidential information and the adopted strict criteria which must be met by lead reviewers of the expert review teams.

Consideration of additional procedures or institutional mechanisms to assist the Conference of the Parties in regularly reviewing the implementation of the Convention, including the review referred to in paragraph 4 of decision 1 COP.5

Decides that lead reviewers referred to in the guidelines under Article 8 of the Kyoto Protocol (decision 23 CP.7) will be based in their home country or their country of residence for the period of their assignment and will attend regularly scheduled meetings and planned review activities outside their home country or their country of residence to perform the duties described in these guidelines.

Requests that lead reviewers, as defined in paragraphs 36 42 of the guidelines for review under Article 8 of the Kyoto Protocol (decision 23 CP.7), collectively consider and make recommendations on

Having considered decisions 23 CP.7, 23 CP.8 and 21 CP.9,

I urge the Council to assess regularly the effect of resolution 1572 (2004) on the ground.

At CRIC sessions during COP, at least 2 two days should be allocated to reviewing the reports of relevant agencies and of the inter sessional session of the CRIC, and for preparing draft decisions.

115. Urges the Ad Hoc Steering Group to complete the assessment of assessments within two years, as provided for in resolution 60 30

UNFCCC review guidelines adopted in 1999 (decision 3 CP.5) and revised in 2002 (decision 19 CP.8) help to ensure that reviews are conducted consistently in a technically sound manner.

The review by the Executive Board shall be made in accordance with the following provisions

I urge the Council regularly to gauge the effect of resolution 1572 (2004) on the ground.