Why three different 2024 energy-emission numbers are circulating, what the IPCC and UNFCCC guidance says about comparing them, and the decision path to 31 August.
By the end of this brief you will know where the gap between 9,5 and 14,8 Mt comes from, which IPCC rule settles the comparison, and what decision METE must record before any change to the CDN 3.0 baseline.
The concern now has a named author, a number, and a method. That makes it answerable technically, with the documents both sides already use.
C sits roughly 50 % above A for the same year, computed from the same energy balance. Real emissions did not grow by half in one year. The gap is methodological, and the next two slides decompose it.
| Component of the SIE balance | A · HEAT 1A series | B · Model energy total | C · Sambou reference approach |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fossil fuel combustion (1A) · CO₂ | included | included | included |
| Non-CO₂ gases (CH₄, N₂O) | excluded | included | grossed up at 5 % |
| Biomass CO₂ (fuelwood, charcoal) | excluded per IPCC | to be documented | unknown · to verify |
| International bunkers (aviation, marine) | excluded per IPCC | excluded | unknown · to verify |
| Non-energy use / feedstocks | excluded | excluded | unknown · to verify |
| Fugitive emissions (1B) | excluded | to be documented | not covered by reference approach |
The three columns cannot agree while their rows differ. Every cell marked "unknown" resolves in minutes once M. Sambou's calculation file is on the table. The A-to-B difference inside the CDN3 model (1,7 Mt for 2025) is documented as part of the same reconciliation.
2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Volume 2 (Energy), Chapter 6, Reference Approach. Mandatory for Paris Agreement inventories under Decision 18/CMA.1.
M. Sambou correctly describes the reference approach as a reliability check on the sectoral approach, with agreement expected within about ±5 %. That test is defined after these exclusions are applied on both sides. His email asserts the band; the exclusions are what the worked file will show.
If both methods land in this range, they agree within the ±5 % expectation of the guidance, and the CDN 3.0 energy BAU stands. If a residual gap survives correct accounting, the BAU is recalibrated from that evidence. Either way, the numbers decide.
All deduction values are hypotheses until verified in M. Sambou's calculation file and in HEAT's own reference-approach run on the archived SIE 2024 (Rapport SIE-2024, édition 28/04/2025). Both checks are the agenda of the Monday session.
This asymmetry cuts both ways and should be named openly in the room. UNFCCC guidance handles it through documentation: the ICTU annex of Decision 4/CMA.1 requires Parties to describe reference points and baselines, the assumptions and methods behind them, and updates to them. Paris Agreement Article 4.13 requires accounting that ensures transparency, accuracy, completeness, comparability and consistency.
Decision D1, for METE, in writing: if the reconciliation leaves a residual gap and the BAU is recalibrated, do the adopted targets move with it, or are the targets held and the percentages restated? This is a ministry policy call. It is not a consultant call, and not a working-group call.
Two inputs requested before the session: M. Sambou's calculation file (the exclusions can be verified there in minutes) and the SIE 2023 report (PDF), which also closes an open custody gap in the project's source register.
Apply the exclusions, then compare. The numbers will tell us whether the BAU moves.
Decision paragraph numbers are cited at decision level; verify exact paragraph references against the official texts at unfccc.int before external use.