No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Identifying and Addressing Gaps in the UNFCCC Reporting Framework
Abstract
There are many reasons why the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) reporting framework requests information from countries. These include understanding and tracking progress with individual or collective commitments or pledges, providing confidence and enhancing accountability in quantified information measured and reported, and providing background information on the scope and ambition of national climate responses. This paper highlights the gaps, inconsistencies and uncertainties in the current reporting framework, which was developed for both long-standing obligations and mitigation pledges for the period to 2020. The paper also identifies possible improvements in the UNFCCC reporting framework in the context of the post-2020 transparency framework and nationally determined contributions (NDCs) for the post-2020 period.
... It is a foundation for accounting and tracking progress towards climate change mitigation goals [1]. However, many non-Annex I countries under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) do not yet have the necessary capacity to produce regular inventories of their GHG emissions [2]- [5]. With more frequent reporting requirements under the Convention, non-Annex I countries need to build capacity to support more sustainable and robust systems for national GHG inventory preparation. ...
... It provides transparency, and is a basis for understanding and gauging the implementation of the Convention. Transparent reporting, combined with subsequent third-party consideration, helps to increase trust and confidence in the information reported [4], [5]. In accordance with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, the required contents of national reports and the timetable for submissions of national reports are different between Annex I countries and countries not included in Annex I to the Convention (non-Annex I countries). ...
... For instance, the internationally-set objectives for BURs are not being met. According to [5], although initial BURs were supposed to be submitted by the end of 2014 for all developing countries except LDCs and SIDS (a total of 71 countries), only 16 BURs had been submitted by 31 October 2015. ...
This paper aims to evaluate potential factors that enable developing countries to update national greenhouse gas (GHG) inventories on a regular basis, by analyzing to what extent each factor differentiates frequency of submissions by countries of national communications and/or biennial update reports to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). To this end, the following steps were taken: (1) identification of arrangements and processes for
the preparation of national GHG inventories to be used as evaluation criteria; (2) grouping of developing countries by frequency of submissions, and selection of their national reports for evaluation; (3) scoring of the selected national reports against the evaluation criteria; (4) analysis of the assigned scores. The finding indicates that funding support under the UNFCCC has not been translated to building a capacity to produce regular inventories, suggesting that a potential value exists for another type of support that specifically meets the needs of developing countries to achieve a sustainable inventory
system. As GHG inventories are the foundation for tracking progress towards mitigation goals, if the enhanced transparency framework outlined in the Paris Agreement is to be successfully implemented, capacity building on GHG inventory in developing countries should be given priority.
... Differentiation has played a major role in determining the shape of transparency. Historically, the bifurcation between Annex I and non-Annex I Parties under the UNFCCC has posed barriers to extending the same transparency rules to all Parties, limiting the generation of information and its comparability (Ellis & Moarif, 2015). Over time, however, transparency arrangements for developed and developing countries have converged gradually. ...
... Many observers explain current reporting hurdles by pointing to capacity constraints in developing countries (e.g. Ellis & Moarif, 2015;Winkler, Mantlana, & Letete, 2017), and call for increased international support to build capacities to report. This rationale is apparent in the Paris Agreement's reference to 'built-in flexibility which takes into account Parties' different capacities' (Article 13.1), and the creation of the new Capacity Building Initiative for Transparency (UNFCCC, 2016, paragraph 94). ...
... AgriTech innovations are mostly driven by Farm Management Practices to improve energy efficiency via the use of precision agricultural technologies, e.g. GPS guidance and controlled traffic farming [16]. These innovations are contrasted by global food demand challenges: Speedy conversion of natural vegetation to agriculture and cropland intensification, counteract any efforts of total GHG emission reductions [3]. ...
... Extensive knowledge of agricultural activities and careful policy development could provide a conducive environment for CCMTs R&D and encourage investment in the agriculture sector. Although, some innovations are taking place in the area of precision agriculture and design changes in agriculture technologies like smart tractor, smart irrigation system, intelligent nutrient assessment technologies [16]. Several capital-intensive CCMTs are growing across agricultural practices like improving heating, ventilation and air conditioning efficiency in on or off-farm activities [26]- [28]. ...
... Differentiation has played a major role in determining the shape of transparency. Historically, the bifurcation between Annex I and non-Annex I Parties under the UNFCCC has posed barriers to extending the same transparency rules to all Parties, limiting the generation of information and its comparability (Ellis & Moarif, 2015). Over time, however, transparency arrangements for developed and developing countries have converged gradually. ...
... Many observers explain current reporting hurdles by pointing to capacity constraints in developing countries (e.g. Ellis & Moarif, 2015;Winkler, Mantlana, & Letete, 2017), and call for increased international support to build capacities to report. This rationale is apparent in the Paris Agreement's reference to 'built-in flexibility which takes into account Parties' different capacities' (Article 13.1), and the creation of the new Capacity Building Initiative for Transparency (UNFCCC, 2016, paragraph 94). ...
How will the Paris Agreement drive countries to address climate change? One expectation of the Agreement is that transparency will stimulate countries to increase the ambition of their pledges by revealing information on Parties’ climate efforts. To this end, the Agreement introduced a new ‘enhanced transparency framework’ (ETF) to report and review information on Parties’ greenhouse gas emissions, progress made in implementing and achieving nationally determined contributions (NDCs), their adaptation actions, and the financial, technological and capacity-building support needed, received and provided to developing country Parties. However, this relationship between transparency and progressive ambition over time remains largely untested. In this article, we first outline several pathways through which increased transparency could potentially lead to increased ambition. These pathways notably depend on the availability of comparable, complete and timely information on the performance of Parties. By reviewing the experience with past and existing transparency arrangements, we identify four types of challenges that will likely pose barriers to the generation of such information by the ETF, and suggest some efforts that might address these challenges to support greater ambition in future rounds of NDCs.
... The reviews of industrialised countries typically draw, in an ad hoc nature, from government-sponsored experts (academia, business and government sectors) to conduct a review, with occasional in-country visits. The pre-2014 developed country national reports were so incomplete and inconsistent that it was not possible to credibly assess the impacts of mitigation policies across countries or even compare efforts within a country over time (Thompson, 2006a;Aldy, 2014b;Ellis and Moarif, 2015). ...
... While this heterogeneity of pledges may facilitate broader participation (also evident in the Paris Agreement), it may present challenges in assessing and comparing mitigation efforts absent in a robust transparency regime. These two agreements required biennial reports by developed countries and biennial update reports by developing countries (Ellis and Moarif, 2015). These reports feed into a consultative process for peers to discuss individual nations' domestic emission mitigation programmes. ...
Climate change governance is in a state of enormous flux. New and more dynamic forms of governing are appearing around the international climate regime centred on the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). They appear to be emerging spontaneously from the bottom up, producing a more dispersed pattern of governing, which Nobel Laureate Elinor Ostrom famously described as 'polycentric'. This book brings together contributions from some of the world's foremost experts to provide the first systematic test of the ability of polycentric thinking to explain and enhance societal attempts to govern climate change. It is ideal for researchers in public policy, international relations, environmental science, environmental management, politics, law and public administration. It will also be useful on advanced courses in climate policy and governance, and for practitioners seeking incisive summaries of developments in particular sub-areas and sectors. This title is also available as Open Access on Cambridge Core.
... In terms of reporting, the record of mitigation-related reporting by developed country parties is generally seen as adequate, albeit with some variation (Ellis and Moarif, 2015). ...
... Although reporting requirements for developing countries are less stringent than those for developed countries, this suggests that developing countries are experiencing difficulties with aspects of reporting. This may be related, among others reasons, to a lack of financial resources, data, or established domestic reporting infrastructures (Ellis and Moarif, 2015). In other words, reporting challenges are associated with capacity constraints. ...
Are we doing enough to address climate change? Are countries living up to their promises? Are some doing better than they pledged? Transparency is key for answering these questions. This ecbi Pocket Guide traces the evolution of transparency arrangements under the UNFCCC right up to the transparency framework under the Paris Agreement. It addresses both transparency of action and of support, and suggests ways to strengthen both these important elements of the global climate regime.
... En matière de notification, l'historique du rapportage portant sur l'atténuation réalisé par les pays développés parties est généralement considéré comme adéquat, même si certaines lacunes sont parfois mises en évidence (Ellis & Moarif, 2015). Pour les pays en développement, le défi que représente un rapportage plus régulier et plus complet peut s'illustrer par le fait que début 2017 seuls 36 pays en développement avaient soumis leurs premiers BURs (qui devaient être soumis fin 2014). ...
... Même si les obligations de notification sont moins lourdes pour les pays en développement que pour les pays développés, cela laisse penser que les pays en développement font face à des difficultés par rapport à certains aspects du rapportage. Ces aspects peuvent être notamment liés au manque de ressources financières, au manque de données, ou encore au manque d'infrastructures de rapportage établies au niveau national (Ellis & Moarif, 2015). En d'autres mots, les difficultés liées à la communication d'informations sont associées à des contraintes en matière de capacités. ...
... However, as part of a tradeoff to strengthen the transparency of support provided, developing countries agreed to the system embedded in the Cancún Agreements (Morgan et al., 2010). In terms of reporting, the record of mitigation-related reporting by developed country parties is generally seen as adequate, albeit with some variation (Ellis and Moarif, 2015). For developing countries, the challenge of ever more regular and comprehensive reporting can be discerned from the fact that, by early 2017, only 36 developing countries had submitted their first Biennial Update Reports (which were due by the end of 2014). ...
... Although reporting requirements for developing countries are less stringent than those for developed countries, this suggests that developing countries are experiencing difficulties with aspects of reporting. This may be related, among others reasons, to a lack of financial resources, data, or established domestic reporting infrastructures (Ellis and Moarif, 2015). In other words, reporting challenges are associated with capacity constraints. ...
Are we doing enough to address climate change? Are countries living up to their promises? Are some doing better than they pledged? Transparency is key for answering these questions. This ecbi Pocket Guide traces the evolution of transparency arrangements under the UNFCCC right up to the transparency framework under the Paris Agreement. It addresses both transparency of action and of support, and suggests ways to strengthen both these important elements of the global climate regime.
... As outlined in previous OECD and CCXG analyses (e.g. OECD, 2015a; Ellis and Moarif, 2015), identifying and attributing the effects of specific adaptation actions is not straightforward for several reasons. Moreover, while a majority of countries have included some information on adaptation in their Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs), their scope, timeline and clarity vary considerably. ...
... However, as outlined in several analyses (e.g. OECD, 2015a; ODI, 2015; GIZ, 2015; Ellis and Moarif, 2015) there are significant challenges in monitoring and evaluating individual adaptation actions or plans, and there is no one-size-fits-all response. These challenges are compounded when trying to assess the overall adaptation effects of multiple actions at an aggregated level, as there is no single indicator that can be used to assess the extent of a country's multiple different adaptation actions, approaches and needs -and not always a reliable "baseline" against which effects can be measured (AFD, 2012). ...
The Paris Agreement, adopted by the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), reinforces the international framework for adaptation action by establishing a global adaptation goal. Under the Paris Agreement, countries have also agreed to an enhanced transparency framework for action, which includes adaptation. The Agreement also requests each Party to submit and update an “adaptation communication” as appropriate. This paper explores what elements of countries’ adaptation responses and progress could be reported under the Paris Agreement so as to better communicate efforts towards enhanced adaptation and resilience. The paper also highlights the potential benefits both at a national and an international level from identifying and collating adaptation-related information. Finally the paper outlines a possible structure of an adaptation communication, and identifies options and associated information needs for the adaptation-related components of the global stocktake agreed to in the Paris Agreement.
... Ecological Informatics 82 (2024) 102732 Himalayan Temperate Zone, to calculate AGB. The circular plots, which followed UNFCCC requirements, had a radius of 17.84 m and constituted a 0.1-ha area (Ellis and Moarif, 2015;Khan et al., 2021). Stratified random sampling was used to choose the plots, and time, resources, accessibility, and terrain were all considered during the field work. ...
... The outcome of this approach is that provisions for reporting adaptation information are insufficient to ensure that countries will provide complete, comparable, consistent, or transparent reports on their adaptation-related responses. It also means that the current reporting requirements are not sufficient to identify progress being made in climate change adaptation at national and global level (Ellis & Moarif, 2015). In fact, Winkler et al., 2017, indicate that "information on implementation of climate actions that is crucial for trust-building and for tracking progress must be provided every two years through transparency reports". ...
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is the centre of the global policy response to climate change. The Paris Agreement, a legally binding treaty under the UNFCCC, has located climate change adaptation as a critical component of the global response to climate change. The Paris Agreement also establishes an enhanced transparency framework to track progress towards Parties climate change commitments. However, the UNFCCC has consistently maintained a marked difference in provisions for reporting climate change adaptation and climate change mitigation. Consequently, reporting on climate change adaptation lags far behind in detail when compared to that for reporting on climate change mitigation. Using literature review as the main method of analysis, this paper aims to understand the underlying factors that have resulted in the lack of specificity of reporting provisions of the UNFCCC for climate change adaptation and the consequences of non-mandatory provisions for reporting on climate change adaptation on national and global adaptation practice. The paper then highlights the benefits of regular reporting of climate change adaptation to the UNFCCC. It makes important contribution to the growing literature on global environmental governance, especially on national reporting of adaptation information, an under-studied and a poorly understood field.
... Following the top-down method of calculating GHG emissions, the time variable has a crucial role. Based on the requirements from the UNFCCC guidelines, Annex I countries must report their annual GHG inventories in National Communications on Climate Change (NCCC), Annual inventories or Biannual Reports while Annex II Countries report biannually through NCCCs and Biannual Update Reports (Ellis and Moarif, 2015). ...
Packaging is lately identified as one of the biggest environmental problems and is at a focus of the scientific community and the industry aiming at minimizing environmental impacts. One of the most applied eco-design measures is to substitute traditional packaging materials with bio-based materials. One of the driving incentives for the packaging industry is the calculation of biogenic carbon (BC), even though there is no unified method for the calculation of credits from carbon sequestration.
We developed a case study of paper-based packaging and tested the two variables important in the circular economy: (i) material, by modeling three different end-of-life scenarios; (ii) and time, by assessing the importance of this variable using bottom-up and top-down calculations.
The results of the case study showed that credits from carbon sequestration could lead to undesirable linear pathways of the EoL, by giving the biggest credits for landfilling and, thus, contradicting the circularity principles. Moreover, the time variable is critical for the calculation of biogenic carbon. Credits for carbon sequestration for short-lived products can lead to an overestimation of the storing impact because the top-down calculus of national inventories, developed based on the UNFCCC method, cannot register carbon savings.
This short communication indicates that we need to invest in additional research to identify the correct way to calculate the carbon credits when using bio-based materials and to improve the practice for calculations of the overall carbon footprint of the short-lived materials in the technosphere.
... To initiate strategic reserves, consistent guidelines, definitions, and accounting rules need to be established. Similar to international requirements for monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV; Ellis and Moarif, 2015), there is a need to upgrade our measurement systems as recommended in national and international reports (e.g., Law et al., 2008;Ciais et al., 2014). Consistent, current metrics will help refine locations for reserves, establish baseline conditions, and monitor changes in plant and animal species, forest carbon and other metrics of condition. ...
Creating strategic forest reserves is essential for stemming the loss of biodiversity and contributing to climate mitigation and adaptation. Meeting preservation targets of 30% protection by 2030, and 50% by 2050 would lead to greater protection of animal taxa and tree species habitat, carbon stocks and accumulation, and forests that are important sources of drinking water. Here, we develop a regional framework to specifically identify at a fine resolution (30 m) high priority forestlands for preservation in Oregon, USA. We include a resilience metric that represents connectivity and topographic diversity, and identify areas within each ecoregion that are ranked high priority for carbon, biodiversity, resilience and drinking water. Oregon has less than 10% of its forestlands protected at the highest levels, yet its temperate forests are among those with the highest carbon densities in the world. Reserves for surface drinking water sources and forest habitat for birds, mammals, amphibians, and reptiles could increase to 50–70% protection at the highest levels by 2050. Protected aboveground biomass carbon could triple to 635 teragrams of carbon by 2050. The ownership of the high preservation priority lands for carbon and biodiversity is primarily federal (67% by 2050) followed by private (28% by 2050), with much less in the other ownerships. Forest reserves could be established on federal lands through executive action, regulation and rule-making, while private landowners could be incentivized to store more carbon, limit harvest in certain areas and transfer ownership to land trusts. Protecting mature and old forests on federal lands fulfills an urgent need for protection and provides a low-cost way to simultaneously meet national and international goals. This study provides a flexible, dynamic framework for identifying areas that are high priority to protect for climate mitigation and adaptation at regional and sub-regional scales.
... Alasan-alasan ini termasuk pemahaman individual atau komitmen kolektif atau janji, melacak progress, memberikan kepercayaan, dan meningkatkan akuntabilitas dari informasi yang diukur dan dilaporkan, serta menyediakan latar belakang informasi seperti ruang lingkup dan ambisi nasional untuk merespons perubahan iklim. Pelaporan yang lengkap dan transparan, ditambah dengan pertimbangan dari pihak ketiga, akan membantu untuk meningkatkan kepercayaan terhadap informasi yang dilaporkan [16]. Dalam Integrasi antara kebijakan pengurangan emisi dengan pengembangan sumber daya manusia melalui BPSDMP juga diperlukan. ...
Sebagai upaya pengendalian dampak perubahan iklim, pemerintah Indonesia mendukung berbagai upaya mitigasi dampak perubahan iklim melalui komitmen nasional dalam Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC). Sektor transportasi yang merupakan bagian dari subsektor energi berkontribusi penting dalam penurunan emisi gas rumah kaca (GRK) sehingga menjadi bagian utama dari program mitigasi perubahan iklim. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui integrasi pengarusutamaan komitmen dan program perubahan iklim pada sektor transportasi berdasarkan prinsip pembangunan berkelanjutan dan penerapan prinsip Whole of Government (WOG) dengan studi kasus pada sektor transportasi udara. Penelitian ini menggunakan data primer hasil Focus Grup Discussion (FGD) dan data sekunder dari berbagai dokumen yang relevan. Metode analisis menggunakan pendekatan analisis kesenjangan. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa diperlukan sistem pengukuran, pelaporan, dan verifikasi yang akuntabel. Perencanaan dan koordinasi yang komprehensif antarpemangku kepentingan dan sumber daya manusia yang mampu menjalankan program secara optimal diperlukan sehingga dapat menjamin akurasi laporan penurunan emisi untuk menghindari perhitungan ganda. Di masa mendatang, keberhasilan pengarusutamaan program perubahan iklim di subsektor transportasi udara dapat menjadi patokan pembanding (benchmark) bagi subsektor transportasi lainnya.
... For developing countries specifically, this included enhanced reporting of national greenhouse gas inventories, mitigation actions and their effects, and support needed and received, to be included in Biennial Update Reports (BURs) to be provided to the UNFCCC secretariat, from 2014 onwards (UNFCCC 2014). The Paris Agreement's enhanced transparency framework builds on the Cancun arrangements, by mandating domestic MRV systems to continue to generate information necessary for assessing the progress of country climate actions (Ellis and Moarif, 2015;Winkler et al., 2017). Furthermore, voluntary domestic MRV systems are also intended to enhance transparency around national mitigation actions so as to facilitate access to international finance (Matsuo and Schmidt 2017), including project-based mitigation support through the UNFCCC's Kyoto Protocol flexible mechanisms, such as the Clean Development Mechanism (Shishlov and Bellassen 2016). ...
Using Indonesia's energy sector as case study, we explore the effects of the domestic measurement, reporting and verification (MRV) system as a manifestation of national level climate transparency. We examine the ways in which MRV facilitates state actors' reflexive capacity to recognize, reflect on, and respond to the demand for mitigation-related information emanating from global climate governance processes. Our results show that engagement with Indonesia's domestic MRV system enhanced actors' capacities to reorganize institutional arrangements, including competing rules and practices; recalibrate data and information systems; reprioritize the deployment of available resources; and reformulate policy and strategy. These reflexive responses illustrate the range of potential MRV-associated effects that can be realized in a domestic context, beyond simply generating and reporting information. We conclude that while the generation of transparency has yet to directly enhance domestic mitigation action, it facilitates improvement of informational and executive systems and infrastructures that support mitigation policies.
... Studying mangroves through aerial research is covered by this, as UAVs are well-suited to estimate local mangrove extent and carbon stocks relevant to NDCs (Ruwaimana et al., 2018). Thus, this study's results can serve as one metric for Annex II countries' mandatory reports on climate finance and technology support, and guide developing countries in their requests for technology and capacity building needs (Ellis and Moarif, 2015). ...
As the use of aerial tools such as unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) for mangrove monitoring gains in popularity, understanding who leads this research and where is critical for expanding efficient monitoring methods and achieving international commitments to sustainable development, technology transfer and reduced inequality. Between 2000 and 2019, mangrove research using aerial tools was largely conducted in and led by institutions in higher income countries, despite High-income countries accounting for only 9% of global mangrove coverage. Of studies where the country of the lead institution differed from that of the study site, only 38% of the studies included local co-authors. These results echo historical patterns of research conducted by researchers from higher income countries on biodiversity concentrated in lower income countries, frequently with limited involvement of local scientists—known as “helicopter research.” The disconnect between where mangroves are located and where aerial research is conducted may result from barriers such as government restrictions, limited financial and technical resources, language barriers hindering UAV deployment, or hampered findability of local research. Our findings suggest that expertise for aerial surveys currently lies in “High-income, Annex II” and “Upper-middle-income, Non-Annex” countries, and both groups could invest time and resources in building local, long-term technological capacity in Upper-middle, Lower-middle and Low-income countries. We identify strategic partnerships to expand aerial tools for mangrove research that also address commitments under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and potential international collaborations under the framework proposed by the UN Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development.
... Briner & Moarif, 2016;Dagnet et al., 2017;Elliott et al., 2017;Niederberger & Kimble, 2011). Even the nature and extent of engagement with UNFCCC transparency processes remains little examined (exceptions include Briner & Moarif, 2016;Ellis & Moarif, 2015;Pulles, 2017). There remains an implicit or explicit assumption that UNFCCC transparency will help to stimulate enhanced climate action and increased ambition (see e.g. ...
Transparency is increasingly central to multilateral climate governance. In this article, we undertake one of the first systematic assessments of the nature and extent of compliance with transparency requirements under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Extensive resources are now being devoted to setting up national and international transparency systems that aim to render visible what individual countries are doing with regard to climate change. It is widely assumed that such transparency is vital to securing accountability, trust and thereby also enhanced climate actions from all. Yet, whether transparency lives up to this transformative promise remains largely unexamined. We generate a first systematic overview here of the nature and extent of country engagement with and adherence to UNFCCC transparency requirements. Drawing on extensive primary documents, including national reports and technical expert assessments of these reports, we generate ‘Transparency Adherence Indices’ for developed and developing country Parties to the UNFCCC. Our results reveal wide variations in adherence to mandatory reporting requirements and no clear general pattern of improvement since 2014. Our Indices help to illustrate trends and highlight knowledge gaps around the observed adherence patterns. This is timely since the 2015 Paris Agreement calls for an ‘enhanced transparency framework’ to be implemented by 2024 that builds on existing UNFCCC transparency systems. We conclude with identifying a research and policy agenda to help explain observed patterns of adherence, and emphasize the need for continued scrutiny of assumed links between transparency and climate action.
Key policy insights
• The UNFCCC and its 2015 Paris Agreement call for ever greater climate transparency from all countries.
• We develop ‘Transparency Adherence Indices’ that reveal frequency of engagement and adherence to reporting requirements of both developed and developing countries.
• Our findings reveal high engagement in transparency arrangements by developed countries and variable engagement from developing countries.
• We question what variable adherence to reporting requirements actually signifies, given how such adherence is assessed within UNFCCC technical expert reports.
• Further research to explain the range of observed adherence patterns is important, in light of the Paris Agreement’s requirements for enhanced transparency from all.
• The assumed link between enhanced transparency and climate action needs further analysis.
... Transparency under the UNFCCC hinges to a large extent on the capacity for developing countries to report. Despite increasingly stringent requirements for reporting, many developing countries have not yet developed the necessary capacity to produce regular inventories (Ellis and Moarif 2015). With this in mind, much study in recent years has been focused on the challenges faced by developing countries with building the long-term capacity required for more frequent reporting of their GHG inventories (Herold 2003;Willems and Baumert 2003;Breidenich 2011;Damassa and Elsayed 2013;Kawanishi and Fujikura 2018;Kawanishi et al. 2019Kawanishi et al. , 2020. ...
The transparency framework under the Paris Agreement hinges to a large extent on the capacities for developing countries to regularly update their national greenhouse gas (GHG) inventories. The present study aims to understand how such capacities are developed at the organizational level and how this process is influenced by changes in the institutional environments. To this end, we selected the case of Indonesia, a country where the task of producing a national GHG inventory was once outsourced to experts but is now managed within the Ministry of Environment and Forestry. This paper probes why and how this is possible through two different lenses: a model of strategic issue diagnosis and the framework for implementation analysis. Based on data obtained through participant observation, interviews, and document reviews, both approaches were vital in studying the importance of clarity and consistency of basic policy decisions. This study also highlighted the role of capacity development and found that these factors interacted with each other to create positive impacts on the implementation of a national GHG inventory in Indonesia. The analytical frameworks we used can be applied to contexts in other countries. While the model of strategic issue diagnosis enables us to check each aspect of issue interpretations by decision-makers and other organizational participants (urgency, feasibility, and interdependence), the framework for implementation analysis assists with determining if the necessary conditions exist for effective policy implementation. These results are useful for governments and/or donor agencies to identify priority areas of intervention.
... 140 Only developed countries have been required to provide quantified data on their greenhouse gas emissions expressed in CO 2 -equivalents and provide projections of greenhouse gas emissions. 141 If developing countries want to report their aggregate greenhouse gas emissions, they should use GWP values that are different from those that developed countries are required to use. 142 The reporting format also differs between developed and developing countries. ...
According to the 1.5°C Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, limiting global warming to 1.5 or 2°C, as specified in the Paris Agreement, will require significant reductions, both in cumulative carbon dioxide emissions and in short‐lived climate pollutants, including methane. This article seeks to explore how action on global methane emissions could be strengthened under the United Nations climate regime, particularly through the Paris Agreement. To answer this question, the article begins by analysing the existing methane mitigation and reporting commitments under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Kyoto Protocol, the Paris Agreement and the Paris rulebook. The article then explores the possibilities to further strengthen these commitments through the Paris Agreement. Methane can be targeted in future rounds of nationally determined contributions through specified methane mitigation targets and strategies. The reporting of methane emissions will significantly improve through the enhanced transparency framework of the Paris Agreement and the reporting guidelines agreed under the Paris rulebook. In addition, the article identifies several further opportunities for strengthening action on methane under the Paris Agreement, including through its sustainable development mechanism, long‐term low greenhouse gas emission development strategies, global stocktake, support and non‐party action.
... Discussions on international private adaptation finance first emerged under this target. Criteria for monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) are being developed for private adaptation finance to be accountable in a consistent, transparent, comparable, complete and accurate manner(UNFCCC 2014; UNEP 2011;Ellis and Moarif 2015). The verification criteria aim to assess benefits, and there have been attempts to develop an MRV system suitable for private investments in adaptation (e.g.Jachnik et al. 2015;Brown et al. 2015). ...
Over the last decade, there has been the growing expectation from the international community that the private sector will become an important source of finance for climate change adaptation in developing countries. However, this potential still remains unclear. While it is expected that some private actors will purposefully or unconsciously invest in reducing their own vulnerability, it is far less obvious how the public sector can mobilize private investments in adaptation that deliver benefits to the broader community. This paper presents an empirically-driven, conceptual framework that allows users to create an overview of enabling environments, mobilization, and delivery of finance for adaptation benefits at the national level. The framework was tested in two countries in Sub-Saharan Africa: Kenya and Rwanda. While an enabling environment is an important first step for mobilization of private finance, as often argued in literature, it is also crucial to enforce existing policies and consistently install and apply safeguard mechanisms, as well as to create awareness of climate impacts among private sector actors. Otherwise, the high expectations around the private sector’s financing of adaptation will not be met, which would leave communities, businesses and countries vulnerable to climate change.
... Transparency under the UNFCCC also hinges to a large extent on the capacity for developing countries to report. In spite of the increasingly stringent requirements for reporting, many developing countries have not yet developed the necessary capacity to produce regular inventories (Ellis and Moarif 2015;Umemiya et al. 2016). With this in mind, much study in recent years has been focused on the challenges faced by developing countries in building the long-term institutional capabilities required for more frequent reporting of their national GHG inventories (Herold 2003;Willems and Baumert 2003;Breidenich 2011;Damassa and Elsayed 2013;Kawanishi and Fujikura 2018;Kawanishi et al. 2019). ...
A transparency framework has been enhanced under the Paris Agreement. Developing countries need to develop the capacity to regularly update national greenhouse gas (GHG) inventories, thereby tracking progress toward climate change mitigation goals under their nationally determined contributions (NDCs). Although much study in recent years has been focused on the challenges faced by developing countries in building the long-term institutional capabilities required for more frequent inventory reporting, little work has been done to analyze the institutional linkage between the national GHG inventories and NDCs in the respective countries. Against this backdrop, we examined the cases of Vietnam and the Philippines. Through desktop reviews and a series of interviews conducted in 2018, the present study characterized their institutional designs for the national GHG inventory. It also evaluated observed outcomes of institutional performance in the following dimensions: (1) the frequency and quality of national GHG inventory reporting and (2) the effectiveness of the national GHG inventory at informing the process to formulate mitigation actions under NDCs. The study found that there are differences in performance outcomes between the two countries, which may be linked to the differences in institutional designs. It also found potential trade-offs: A good performance outcome in one dimension may not necessarily translate into a similar result in the other. The findings have implications for transparency-related capacity building assistance: A sound understanding of institutional arrangements and their potential consequences is important for development partners to facilitate the interplay between the national GHG inventory and NDCs in developing countries.
... 9 Reporting hurdles may be related to a lack of financial resources, data, or established domestic reporting infrastructures. 10 However, while reporting challenges are associated with capacity constraints, there may also be a lack of political willingness to report to the UNFCCC. 11 The existing arrangements have also shown that technical reviews can place a significant burden on Parties, expert reviewers and the UNFCCC Secretariat, and that it requires significant financial and human resources. ...
Are we doing enough to address climate change? Are countries living up to their promises? Are some doing better than they pledged? Transparency is key for answering these questions. This ecbi Pocket Guide traces the evolution of transparency arrangements under the UNFCCC right up to the transparency framework under the Paris Agreement. It addresses both transparency of action and of support, and suggests ways to strengthen both these important elements of the global climate regime.
... Spain, as a European country, must fulfill international requirements, which demand information about forest indicators such as those requested by the FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) or UNFCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change), among others. One such requirement is the stock volume [1,2], which is required at five-to ten-year intervals, or in some cases annually [3]. These requirements are used in global reports, which serve as a basis for international policy making. ...
National Forest Inventories (NFIs) are the primary source of information to fulfill international requirements, such as growing stock volume. However, NFI cycles may be “out of phase” in terms of the information required, so prediction techniques are needed. To disentangle the effects of climate and competition on stand productivity and to estimate the volume of stocks at national scale, it is important to recognize that growth and competition are species-specific and vary along climatic gradients. In this study, we estimate the productivity of five pine species (Pinus sylvestris, Pinus pinea, Pinus halepensis, Pinus nigra and Pinus pinaster), growing in monospecific stands or in mixtures along an aridity gradient in the Iberian Peninsula, based on Spanish NFI data. We study the stand volume growth efficiency (VGE), since it allows the comparison of volume growth in monospecific and mixed stands. The results reveal the importance of considering the aridity when assessing VGE. Moreover, it was found that, in general, admixture among pine species leads to modifications in the VGE, which can vary from negative to positive effects depending on species composition, and that this is always influenced by the aridity. Finally, we provide simple growth efficiency models for the studied pines species which are valid for both monospecific and mixed stands along the aridity gradient of the Iberian Peninsula.
... Therefore, with lower knowledge base, farmers might be reluctant to adopt entrepreneurial green farming. To overcome this problem, public and private sector extension services and farmer's education through training in farmer filed school can seed the sustainable knowledge for green entrepreneurial farming (Ellis and Moarif, 2015). ...
Like other developing countries, Pakistan is under severe economic pressure and striving to boost entrepreneurial orientation for achieving growth through minimal depletion of natural resources. In order to facilitate widespread and successful adoption of green entrepreneurial farming, it is crucial to address barriers inhibiting the uptake of green entrepreneurial activities in farming for the sustainability of natural resources as well as food provision. To this end, the present study aimed to investigate barriers in the adoption of green entrepreneurial farming in Pakistan. To fulfill the study objectives, after a comprehensive literature review and field visit, 34 barriers were identified. The results based on ranking analysis identified 20 out of 34 barriers as critical barriers to adoption of green entrepreneurial farming in the country. Furthermore, factor analysis was employed to group underlying 20 critical barriers into six major categories viz. 1) training and development-related barriers, 2) entrepreneurial orientation-related barriers, 3) market orientation-related barriers, 4) customer orientation-related barriers, 5) innovation orientation-related barriers, and 6) green supporting supplies-related barriers. Results showed that most dominant barrier among six groupings was training and development-related barriers and the marginal role of government in the provision of such endeavours. This implies that government needs to play a more active role in the adoption and promotion of green entrepreneurial farming in Punjab, Pakistan.
... Durante las últimas décadas, se ha visto incrementada la demanda de información, no solo en cuanto a la frecuencia de las solicitudes sino también en el número de indicadores solicitados (Vidal et al., 2016). España, por ejemplo, debe responder a los requerimientos solicitados por la FAO para la Evaluación Mundial de los Recursos Forestales (FRA) o a los Criterios e Indicadores de Gestión Sostenible, con los que se elabora el Informe sobre el Estado de los bosques en Europa (SoEF), ambos actualmente con una periodicidad de 5 años , o a los requerimientos derivados del Protocolo de Kioto solicitados por UNFCCC con periodicidad anual (Ellis and Moarif, 2015). Entre los indicadores más importantes destacan la superficie de bosque y el volumen de la masa forestal, ya sean totales, separados en coníferas y frondosas, o bien por especies. ...
... As at 30 July 2017 -more than two years after the 2014 deadline -only 37 non-Annex I Parties had submitted their first BUR. These figures show that non-Annex I Parties are confronted with a variety of challenges in their reporting to the UNFCCC Secretariat (Ellis & Moarif, 2015;Gupta & van Asselt, 2017). These challenges may be related to capacity constraints, including the lack of established domestic reporting systems. ...
In this policy brief we try to understand whether or not the blurry image of climate finance received can be explained by the lack of compliance of developing country Parties toward transparency requirements agreed under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). We show that the lack of compliance is not the only reason for concern. Inadequate transparency requirements decided under the UNFCCC are also to blame. What are the most important challenges that need to be addressed? Will the Paris ‘enhanced transparency framework’ help address them? We discuss these issues in the last part of this brief, along with some policy recommendations for the Belgian Development Cooperation.
... Non-annex 1 countries are also obliged to report on GHG emissions, but with more narrow coverage, and encouraged to use common guidelines and reporting formats. While they also are obliged to provide information in national communications and biennial reports on actions taken toward implementing the Convention, the reporting requirements are significantly more relaxed than those for developed countries (Ellis & Moarif, 2015). ...
In 1992, when the international community agreed on the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the science of climate change was under
development, global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions were by and large produced by
developed countries, and the concentrations of CO in the atmosphere had just surpassed
350 ppm. Some 25 years later, climate change is scientifically uncontested, China has
overtaken the United States as the world’s biggest emitter of CO , and concentrations are
now measured above 400 ppm. Against this background, states have successfully
concluded a new global agreement under the UNFCCC, the 2015 Paris Agreement. Prior
to the Paris Agreement, the climate regime focused on allocating emission reduction
commitments among (a group of) countries. However, the new agreement has turned the
climate regime on its feet by introducing an approach based on Nationally Determined
Contributions (NDCs). Under this approach, states decide their ambition levels
independently instead of engaging in negotiations about “who does what.” The result is a
more flexible system that for the first time includes all countries in the quest to reduce
GHG emissions to keep temperature increase below 2°C compared to preindustrial levels.
Moreover, the international climate regime has transformed into a regime complex,
denoting the broad activities of smaller groups of states as well as non-party actors, such
as cities, regions, companies, and non-governmental organizations along with United
Nations agencies.
... It forms the foundation for accounting and tracking progress toward climate change mitigation goals [1]. However, many non-Annex I countries under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) do not yet have the necessary capacity to produce regular inventories of their GHG emissions [2]- [5]. With more frequent reporting requirements under the UNFCCC, non-Annex I countries need to build capacity to support more sustainable and robust systems for national GHG inventory preparation. ...
The present study aims to identify factors that differentiate developing countries in terms of their sustainable national greenhouse gas (GHG) inventories. To this end, we evaluated the inventory systems of 10 non-Annex I countries in Eastern Europe and Central Asia by scoring their submitted national communications against eight criteria. We find that the range of assigned scores widened with time among these countries due to the EU accession process, which has created a strong incentive for the countries concerned to establish sustainable national GHG inventory systems. This finding has implications for designing development assistance as part of a broader strategy to engage developing countries in climate actions, which should merit further elaboration.
... This increasing demand is reflected not only in the number of parameters for which estimates are requested but also in the increasing frequency of required reports. For example, FAO's Forest Resources Assessment (FRA) assesses the world's forests at 5-to 10-year intervals, while the UNFCCC requires annual reports (Ellis and Moarif, 2015). ...
International organizations increasingly require estimates of forest parameters to monitor the state of and changes in forest resources, the sustainability of forest practices and the role of forests in the carbon cycle. Most countries rely on data from their national forest inventories (NFI) to produce these estimates. However, because NFI survey years may not match the required reporting years, techniques for updating NFI-based estimates are necessary.
The main aim was to develop an unbiased method to update NFI estimates of mean growing stock volume (m³/ha) using models to predict annual plot-level volume change, and to estimate the associated uncertainties. Because the final large area volume estimates were based on plot-level model predictions rather than field observations, hybrid inference was necessary to accommodate both model prediction uncertainty and sampling variation. Specific objectives were to compare modelling approaches, to assess the utility of Landsat data for increasing model prediction accuracy, to select the most accurate method, and to compare model-based and design-based uncertainty components. For four monospecific forest types, data from the 2nd and 3rd Spanish NFI surveys together with site variables and Landsat images were used to construct models to predict NFI information for the year of the 4th NFI survey. Data from the 3rd and 4th surveys were used to assess the accuracy of the model predictions at both plot-level and large area spatial scales.
The most accurate method used a set of three models: one to predict the probability of volume removals, one to predict the amount of removed volume, and one to predict gross annual volume. Incorporation of Landsat-based variables in the models increased prediction accuracy. Differences between large area estimates based on plot-level field observations for the 4th NFI survey and estimates based on the model predictions were minimal for all four forest types. Further, the standard errors of the estimates based on the model predictions were only slightly greater than standard errors based on the field observations. Thus, model predictions of plot-level growing stock volume based on field and satellite image data as auxiliary information can be used to update large area NFI estimates for reporting years for which spectral data are available but field observations are not. Finally, variances of means are under-estimated unless hybrid inferential methods are used to incorporate both model prediction uncertainty and sampling variation. For the two forest types for which the two sources of uncertainty were of the same order of magnitude, the under-estimation was non-negligible.
... While implementation of these arrangements has only recently begun, it has already evidenced some shortcomings. 65 First, the lack of a standard template to report pledged mitigation action before 2020 hindered comparison between Parties' efforts. Unsurprisingly, implementation of the review arrangements under the UNFCCC has shown that the reporting of information in a transparent and complete manner is harder where no standard definitions and/or methods exist. ...
This paper discusses how international law has responded to climate change, focusing on challenges that have faced the implementation of existing climate treaties, and on the suitability of the Paris Agreement to address these. The paper specifically reflects on international law-making and on the approach to international governance embedded in the Paris Agreement, drawing inferences from the past of the regime, to make predictions on what the future of international climate change law may hold.
Developing countries’ ambitious climate action hinges on the provision of climate finance from developed countries. Yet, despite decades of debate and contestation over this, substantial controversies continue to persist over whether and how much climate finance is flowing, including whether it is ‘new and additional’ to existing development assistance, whether it targets climate mitigation or adaptation, and whether it is delivered as grants or loans. In this article, we draw on a little-examined source of self-reporting by countries to shed light on these persisting climate finance controversies. Elaborate transparency arrangements have been set up under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), whereby countries report on climate finance provided and received. We examine transparency reports submitted by 26 countries from 2014 to 2021 by both developed and developing countries, and international review of these reports, to ascertain the extent to which country self-reporting under the UNFCCC sheds light on the nature of climate finance flows between developed and developing countries. We find that both the reports submitted and the international review of these reports are not furthering clarity around climate finance provided and received. This is because of (a) a persisting lack of multilaterally agreed definitions of key aspects of climate finance provided, and a resulting heterogeneity of definitions used by countries to self-report; and (b) because international review of country self-reporting is subject to politically negotiated limitations. We conclude that clarity remains elusive on climate finance provided and received under the UNFCCC, a situation that seems likely to continue under the Paris Agreement’s enhanced transparency framework, due to be implemented in 2024.
Fossil fuel subsidy reform (FFSR) is a relatively new direction being introduced into international negotiations by the Western countries under climate agenda. The issue of FFSR was included into the decision of the COP26 in 2021, and since as long ago as 2009 it has been included into the statements of G20 and G7. Dynamics of FFSR introduction into the documents of also the WTO, UNEP, OECD and IEA as like as gradual strictening of wording is considered. The Western countries aim at one-sided change of existing international rules, alike as ways of conducting economic activity, obtainment of economic and technological advantages for themselves and increase of the developing countries’ costs. Development of the FFSR concept is targeted at deprivation of fossil fuels producing and using countries of their essential advantages and makes an attempt to impose a negative color on objective properties of pricing and fiscal policy, as the latter is fulfilled by sovereign governments of developing states based on their economic goals. The FFSR can become a non-tariff tool of influence on competition in the international trade and production in the interests of the developed states. The valuations of FFS by international organizations vary from 1.1 to 7.1 USD Trillions for 2022 (that is as much as from 1 to 7% of the world’s GDP); these estimates can be used for making pressure on developing states. The term FFSR is being used by its proponents for spheres that are not traditionally referred to as subsidies, and is in the essence directed at both reduction and cost increase of fossil fuels usage. Three following approaches on what is a fossil fuel subsidy are spread. Most common is the one considering a gap between local prices in fossil fuels producing countries and world prices. The second deals with negative externalities arising from fossil fuels usage. Under the third one traditional subsidies are examined. According to the approach applied by the IMF and being considered by the IEA, fossil fuels usage leads to negative externalities, such as climate change, air pollution and other impact. These organisations reckon that such externalities can be quantified mathematically and economically through carbon price – thus by developing the FFSR concept they shape the basis and argumentation for adoption of international carbon pricing. That means radical changing of normal conditions of economic activity in the countries of the world.
In this article we review the physical and chemical properties of methane (CH4) relevant to impacts on climate, ecosystems, and air pollution, and examine the extent to which this is reflected in climate and air pollution governance. Although CH4 is governed under the UNFCCC climate regime, its treatment there is limited to the ways in which it acts as a “CO2 equivalent” climate forcer on a 100-year time frame. The UNFCCC framework neglects the impacts that CH4 has on near-term climate, as well its impacts on human health and ecosystems, which are primarily mediated by methane’s role as a precursor to tropospheric ozone. Frameworks for air quality governance generally address tropospheric ozone as a pollutant, but do not regulate CH4 itself. Methane’s climate and air quality impacts, together with its alarming rise in atmospheric concentrations in recent years, make it clear that mitigation of CH4 emissions needs to be accelerated globally. We examine challenges and opportunities for further progress on CH4 mitigation within the international governance landscapes for climate change and air pollution.
Between 1970 and 2015 urban population almost doubled worldwide with the fastest growth taking place in developing regions. To aid the understanding of how urbanisation has influenced anthropogenic CO2 and air pollutant emissions across all world regions, we make use of the latest developments of the Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research. In this study, we systematically analyse over 5 decades of emissions from different types of human settlements (from urban centres to rural areas) for different sectors in all countries. Our analysis shows that by 2015, urban centres were the source of a third of global anthropogenic greenhouse gases and most of the air pollutant emissions. The high levels of both population and emissions in urban centres therefore call for focused urban mitigation efforts. Moreover, despite the overall increase in urban emissions, megacities with more than 10 million inhabitants in high-income countries have been reducing their emissions, while emissions in developing regions are still growing. We further discuss per capita emissions to compare different types of urban centres at the global level.
Transitioning from a carbon-intensive development path to a low-carbon economy requires understanding of emission sources and its drivers. To achieve Nationally Determined Contribution targets discussed under the Paris Agreement, countries must project emission baselines considering different levels of ambition and sectoral performances and monitor government policies and mitigation actions. This study develops a Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification (MRV) framework based on energy use and carbon emission scenarios for Brazil up to 2030, focusing on transport. Three scenarios are developed based on different political commitments. All scenarios and mitigation actions are discussed under the Brazilian Forum on Climate Change, which is recognized as one of the most important institutional instruments of the National Policy on Climate Change. Results reveal a 41% abatement in CO2e emissions when comparing the most ambitious scenario to the conservative one. MRV framework indicates that Brazil is on track to a low carbon economic transition, although joint action is needed. This is mainly due to the increasing penetration of bioenergy into the transport energy matrix, while electromobility does not expand in Brazil at the pace of major international players such as Europe and China. Special contribution of this paper is on the role of bioenergy in prospective carbon emission scenarios, which is a lack in the literature.
Drawing on adaptation program reviews and interviews with focal points and other key informants carried out between January 2015 and September 2017,48 this chapter describes progress in adaptation governance, institutional development, transparency, and accountability in selected LACs.
Nearly all the world’s governments have prepared and submitted their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), setting out their climate pledges under the 2015 Paris Agreement. These NDCs are to be regularly updated, and many countries are expected to submit a new NDC in 2020. While several studies have assessed the content and potential impacts of the NDCs, this article focusses on the preparatory process and asks the question: under what conditions can countries be expected to develop NDCs that are sufficiently ambitious to contribute to fulfilling the Paris Agreement goals? For some countries, in particular developing nations and emerging economies, the process of preparing and implementing NDCs presents challenges in terms of political support; financial, human and technical resources; and analytical capabilities. With a view to improving future NDCs, this article provides insights from the first round of NDCs. Using results from four surveys carried out in 2015, 2017 and 2018 targeting government representatives and other stakeholders from primarily developing countries and emerging economies, the article finds that the NDC preparation process contributed positively to national climate policy processes. For example, it raised political awareness and preparedness for preparing and implementing climate policies across various ministries and agencies. It also prompted institutional innovation and more coordination between various policy areas. However, more can be done to enhance analytical capacity in order for countries to make commitments based on robust analysis and data.
Key policy insights
• In many countries, the preparation of the NDCs positively contributed to national climate policy processes by raising awareness and catalysing institutional change.
• The NDC process improved political buy-in across government and non-government stakeholders thereby laying the foundation for future higher NDC and climate policy ambition.
• A better understanding of broader impacts and the involvement of affected stakeholders in a targeted way could be conducive to reaching the goals defined in the Paris Agreement and support realistic, yet ambitious target setting. Conversely, process-related problems may lead to implementation problems.
• More analytical, financial and technical resources are needed to implement the first round of NDCs and support countries in preparing future NDC cycles.
Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions control requires coordinated efforts and collaboration at all levels of governmental bodies, non-for-profit organizations, and private sectors. However, the target is difficult to achieve due to challenges arising from conflicts of interest and lack of trust between stakeholders. Thus, we propose a distributed carbon ledger (DCL) system using blockchain technology. Our analysis suggests that the adoption of DCL not only strengthens the corporate accounting system for carbon asset management but also fits within existing market-based emissions trading schemes (ETSs). Blockchain-enabled DCL allows the integration of national emission trading schemes (ETSs) and corporate carbon asset management into a synthetic single mechanism.
JEL Classifications: M41; O44.
How much climate finance has each developing country received? As basic as this question may seem, we currently do not have any satisfactory answers to it. This is a problem for several reasons. In addition to eroding trust in international negotiations on climate change, the current lack of data means that it is impossible to meaningfully identify any gaps in international support for climate actions and where those gaps are, in terms of geographic (country and region), thematic (mitigation, adaptation, etc.) or sectoral (agriculture, health, energy, etc.) allocations. It also means that assessing the extent to which climate finance helps developing countries address mitigation and adaptation challenges in an equitable and efficient manner is extremely complicated.
In this chapter we ask: why is it currently impossible to know how much climate finance each developing country has received and what can be done to change this situation? Many elements that impede the emergence of a clear picture of the international climate finance landscape have already been described in previous AdaptationWatch reports. In this chapter we go one step further, and try to understand whether or not the blurry image of climate finance received can be clarified by recognizing a lack of compliance of developing countries toward transparency requirements agreed under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). We show that lack of compliance is not the only reason for concern; inadequate transparency requirements set out under the UNFCCC are also to blame. We conclude by asking several questions: “What are the most important challenges that need to be addressed?” and “Will the Paris ‘enhanced transparency framework’ help address these challenges?”
This article analyzes the interplay between transparency and accountability in multilateral climate politics. The 2015 Paris Agreement calls for a “pledge-and-review” approach to collective climate action with an “enhanced transparency framework” as a key pillar of the Agreement. By making visible who is doing what, transparency is widely assumed to be vital to holding countries to account and building trust. We explore whether transparency is generating such effects in this context, by developing and applying an analytical framework to examine the link between transparency and accountability. We find that the scope and practices of climate transparency reflect (rather than necessarily reduce) broader conflicts over who should be held to account to whom and about what, with regard to responsibility and burden sharing for ambitious climate action. We conclude that the relationship between transparency and accountability is less straightforward than assumed, and that the transformative promise of transparency needs to be reconsidered in this light.
The measurement, reporting, and verification (MRV) of climate finance was originated from discussions under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). It has been one of the key issues of global climate negotiations since 2009 and will continue to be of significant importance in addressing climate change and strengthening international trust. This paper analyses the concept, the objective, and the progress of the MRV of climate finance based on reviews of the latest literature and think-tank reports regarding climate finance regime and MRV. Following the analysis, challenges faced with the MRV of climate finance are illustrated. This paper presents that the comparability of climate finance data needs to be improved due to the variety of methodologies used for disaggregating climate finance. In addition, the integrality of the MRV system of climate finance has been impaired by the lack of feedback mechanism from the recipients to the contributors in reporting system. Furthermore, although accounting system of climate finance has been developing and improving, it remains incapacity in providing accurate data on disbursed climate finance. Responding to the above challenges, this paper proposes the key tasks in establishing a comprehensive MRV system for climate finance at international level. The tasks involve developing a measurement system with consistent data basis and accounting basis, a reporting system with more detailed guidance and standardized formats, as well as a verification mechanism balancing top-down and bottom-up review processes. In the last section, this paper concludes that the establishment of an improved MRV of climate finance requires concerted cooperation and negotiations between developed and developing country Parties under the UNFCCC. As one of the few developing country donors to the Global Environmental Facility (GEF), China is suggested to clarify its propositions as a developing country in aspects such as concept, coverage, and architecture of climate finance and MRV system, and gain bargaining power in improving operating and technical rules of international climate finance regime.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.