Transparency Framework

The Enhanced Transparency Framework for Action and Support (Engl about. Enhanced transparency framework for action and support ) is a central component of the Convention of Paris (Paris Agreement). The transparency framework defines how the signatory states to the agreement must report on progress in climate protection , measures to adapt to climate change and the support provided or received. It also provides international procedures for reviewing and evaluating the reports.

background

With the adoption of the Convention of Paris (Paris Agreement) was a turning point in the international climate policy carried out that are already on the climate change conference in Copenhagen was initiated in 2009. The internationally binding treaty with global scope not only sets ambitious global goals, such as limiting the increase in the average global temperature to well below 2 ° C compared to the pre-industrial level , but also introduces a new climate policy paradigm that gives states considerable leeway in setting them of its climate protection goals: The individual goals of the contracting states are not negotiated internationally, but are set by the states themselves. Their compliance is also not binding. In order to ensure the implementation of the self-set goals, an innovative architecture with international review and transparency mechanisms was integrated into the agreement. The Transparency Framework is an essential element of this architecture.

The role of the Transparency Framework in the Paris climate regime

The Paris Agreement obliges its contracting states to regularly formulate their own climate protection contributions, the so-called nationally determined contributions - NDCs, whereby these updated NDCs must not fall short of the targets that have been in place until then and should reflect the highest possible ambition. The states are also obliged to implement measures that contribute to achieving these climate protection goals. However, there is no obligation under international law to reach these NDCs and there are no sanctions for non-achievement.

Against this background, the transparency framework is of central importance. Under the transparency framework, the contracting states must report regularly on the progress of the implementation of the objectives and the reports are subjected to an international assessment. The transparency framework thus creates the basis for the global public to publicly name and denounce those states that have failed to achieve the goals they have set themselves. This procedure, known as “naming and shaming”, could compensate for the lack of binding force required to achieve the NDC and is therefore a central pillar of the Paris regime.

The transparency framework is also an essential part of the NDC cycle: the information gathered in the transparency framework is fed into the global stocktake , in which the collective progress towards achieving the long-term goals is balanced. The results of this inventory should in turn be taken into account when determining the national climate protection contributions.

Reporting under the Transparency Framework

The reporting obligations set out in the transparency framework of the Paris Agreement go beyond the previous requirements for disclosure of information under the Framework Convention on Climate Change and replace them.

From 2024, all contracting states must submit so-called Biennial Transparency Reports (BTRs) every two years. With these transparency reports, the states transmit their greenhouse gas inventories and disclose information on the implementation of their NDCs. In contrast to the reporting obligations under the Framework Convention on Climate Change, the transparency framework in the area of climate protection makes no distinction between industrialized and developing countries and the requirements apply in principle to all countries. However, developing countries with limited capacities were given the opportunity to deviate from the requirements and to report to a lesser extent, less often or with a lower level of detail. Countries wishing to make use of this flexibility must, however, justify this and indicate by when they will have overcome the hurdles of comprehensive reporting.

In addition to climate protection, the transparency framework also includes other topics. For example, information on the effects of climate change and measures to adapt to climate change are compiled on a voluntary basis. In addition, the Transparency Framework is used to collect information on support in the area of climate change. With regard to the financial aid made available, however, there is only a reporting obligation for the industrialized countries. The transparency framework also gathers information about the support required and already received. Here too, however, there is no reporting obligation for the developing countries.

It should also be emphasized that states that use the approaches to market-based cooperation anchored in Article 6 of the Paris Agreement must report on the reductions transferred here. These requirements are intended to prevent emission reductions from being counted multiple times and from undermining the environmental integrity of the Paris Agreement.

The review and evaluation of the reports

The Paris Agreement also established a two-stage international process for reviewing and evaluating the reports. At the Conference of the Parties in Katowice in December 2018, the implementation details for both steps were determined:

Step 1 comprises the so-called Technical Expert Reviews (for example: technical expert reviews ). This checks whether the reports submitted are in line with the provisions of the transparency framework and identifies areas in which there is potential for improvement. The question of whether the NDC submitted by the respective state is appropriate or to what extent the implemented measures are sufficient was explicitly excluded from this review. Such an assessment is incompatible with the bottom-up approach of the Paris Agreement, in which the contracting states set their own NDCs.

In step 2, the Facilitative, Multilateral Consideration of Progress takes place (for example: mediating, multilateral discussion of progress ). In this procedure, the contracting states exchange questions and answers with one another. The exchange takes place both in writing and in workshops .

outlook

With the establishment of the Transparency Framework, a uniform reporting system was created that obliges all states to disclose essential information on climate policy. Whether the transparency framework can actually contribute to an increase in climate policy ambition, as laid out in the regime of the Paris Agreement, will largely depend on its application practice. Will the states actually meet their reporting obligations? And if so, how will you interpret the existing guidelines for yourself? After the Conference of the Parties in Katowice in 2018 indicated a great willingness on the part of the international community to ensure more transparency by laying down the implementation rules, the weak negotiation result of the 2019 Climate Change Conference in Madrid points in a different direction. The signatory states at COP 25 did not succeed in further specifying the transparency requirements by establishing uniform reporting structures and tables. Well-known differences between industrialized countries, which demanded greater transparency, and large emerging markets , which resisted overly specific reporting obligations, came to light again. These implementation-relevant points of dispute must be resolved by the upcoming climate conference in Glasgow at the end of 2020, in order to enable robust and as accurate reporting as possible from 2024.

Individual evidence

↑ Paris Agreement, Art. 4.3 .
^ Paris Agreement, Art. 4.2 .
↑ Bodansky, D .: The Legal Character of the Paris Agreement. In: Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law . tape 25 , no. 2 , 2016, p. 142-150 , doi : 10.1111 / reel.12154 .
^ Paris Agreement, Art. 14.
↑ Paris Agreement, Art. 13.2.
↑ Obergassel, W .; Arens, C .; Hermwille, L .; Kreibich, N .; Ott, H. & Wang-Helmreich, H .: Paris Agreement: Ship Moves Out of the Drydock. In: Carbon and Climate Law Review . tape 13 , no. 01 , 2019, p. 3–18 , doi : 10.21552 / cclr / 2019/1/4 .
↑ Decision 18 / CMA.1, Annex, Paragraph 104.
↑ Decision 18 / CMA.1, Annex, Paragraph 118, 130 .
↑ Decision 18 / CMA.1, Annex, Paragraph 77 (d).
^ German Society for International Cooperation (GIZ): Next steps under the Paris Agreement and the Katowice Climate Package . 2019.
↑ Obergassel, W .; Arens, C .; Beuermann, C .; Hermwille, L .; Kreibich, N .; Ott, H .; & Spitzner, M .: Time for Action - Blocked and Postponed — A first assessment of the COP25 in Madrid . 2019.

[1] Paris Agreement, Art. 4.3 .

[2] Paris Agreement, Art. 4.2 .

[3] Bodansky, D .: The Legal Character of the Paris Agreement. In: Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law . tape 25 , no. 2 , 2016, p. 142-150 , doi : 10.1111 / reel.12154 .

[4] Paris Agreement, Art. 14.

[5] Paris Agreement, Art. 13.2.

[6] Obergassel, W .; Arens, C .; Hermwille, L .; Kreibich, N .; Ott, H. & Wang-Helmreich, H .: Paris Agreement: Ship Moves Out of the Drydock. In: Carbon and Climate Law Review . tape 13 , no. 01 , 2019, p. 3–18 , doi : 10.21552 / cclr / 2019/1/4 .

[7] Decision 18 / CMA.1, Annex, Paragraph 104.

[8] Decision 18 / CMA.1, Annex, Paragraph 118, 130 .

[9] Decision 18 / CMA.1, Annex, Paragraph 77 (d).

[10] German Society for International Cooperation (GIZ): Next steps under the Paris Agreement and the Katowice Climate Package . 2019.

[11] Obergassel, W .; Arens, C .; Beuermann, C .; Hermwille, L .; Kreibich, N .; Ott, H .; & Spitzner, M .: Time for Action - Blocked and Postponed — A first assessment of the COP25 in Madrid . 2019.