Transparency of Action and Support under the Paris Agreement Achala Abeysinghe Initial presentation based on the draft paper on ‘Transparency of Action and Support under the Paris Agreement’ by Harro van Asselt, Romain Weikmans, Timmons Roberts, Achala Abeysinghe

Article 13 of the Paris Agreement 13.1: “In order to build mutual trust and confidence and to promote effective implementation, an enhanced transparency framework for action and support, with built-in flexibility which takes into account Parties’ different capacities and builds upon collective experience is hereby established”.

Transparency framework (Article 13) Scope (Mitigation and adaptation) action and (financial, technology, and capacity-building) support; individual Parties; implementation and achievement of the NDCs; national emissions inventories Flexibility Developing countries in light of capacities; special circumstances of LDCs and SIDS recognised, Appears across the Art. 13 and decision 1/CP21 Principles Facilitative; non-intrusive; non-punitive; respectful of national sovereignty; avoiding undue burdens Sources of input National reports, including inventories and information to track progress towards implementing and achieving NDCs under art. 4, and information on impacts and adaptation under art. 7, info on support provided Institutional arrangements Review by technical experts, including potentially in-country reviews, as well as facilitative multilateral consideration of progress with respect to support and implementation and achievement of NDCs Outputs Linked with the global stocktake. Operational way to ensure transparency Link to global stocktake

Key issues Scope, level of details and frequency of reporting- flexibility based on capacity Modalities of review and how to address flexibility issue Ensuring sovereignty of parties and avoiding undue burden on developing countries Reporting on adaptation Transparency of support Support for transparency

Options of implementing flexibility in the scope and frequency of reporting Scope of reporting Distinguish based on the type of NDC and accompanying information Type of mitigation targets included in the NDC NDC with adaptation component Distinguish based on different tiers of countries Developed country Parties -highest level of reporting LDCs and SIDS -least stringent tier There may be other tiers within developing countries, with more stringent tiers always an option should countries decide to do so. Similar system in the IPCC’s tiers specifying methodologies for GHG inventories with increasing levels of detail. Use the BRs, BURs and NATCOMMS and the lessons learnt from CGE to guide the development of MPGs What to be reported, how should the reporting be done, what are the options for reviewing?

Allows LDCs and SIDS to do so at their discretion. Frequency of reporting All Parties have to submit the information required by Article 13.7-13.10 at least biennially (Para 90 1/CP21). Flexibility does not mean that Parties can report less frequently under the Paris Agreement than under the Convention (Para 92(e)). Allows LDCs and SIDS to do so at their discretion. Could be done at least every 5 years so that they can be analysed within each five year cycles- and link to global stocktake.

Options of implementing flexibility in the review Review process Information submitted by each Party shall undergo a technical expert review. In addition, each Party shall participate in a facilitative, multilateral consideration of progress with respect to efforts under art.9 and its respective implementation and achievement of its nationally determined contribution. In-country review (para 89- could be optional for developing countries) Give the option of deciding whether or not to do an in-country review for LDCs and SIDS. Options for reviews for groups of countries? (e.g. LDCs; SIDS; African LDCs; Pacific island SIDS; etc.).

Scope of review The scope of the review can vary according to the contents of the NDC- e.g. economy wide, sectoral, adaptation component, MOI sections of the NDC Frequency of review Options Maintain the existing cycle of reviews for each party apart from LDCs and SIDS (every two years) LDCs and SIDS reports should be reviewed whenever the reports have been submitted but at least once during each five-year NDC cycle.

Facilitative, non-intrusive…nature of the transparency framework and the need to avoid placing undue burden on Parties Expert review can lead to an identification of areas of improvement. CBIT can support parties to improve those areas identified by the expert review. Ask questions to that effect –to improve detail and comprehensiveness of information. More clarity and more specific guidelines for ERT – the less chance the process will be intrusive. An ERT output (report) could be an input to the mechanism under article 15 (facilitating implementation and promoting compliance)

Other factors to consider in terms of review: Time constraints Financial and human resources for review The expertise of existing roster of experts (primarily geared towards reviewing mitigation-related action, much more focus on inventories, none of the analysis in the roaster of experts focused on the contents of NAMAs) There must be guaranteed support for all experts Our current transparency system – the reviewers are mitigation-centric, because what they were assessing were the results of the actions. Lots of inventory information. In Paris, different mindset: obligations of conduct. Move from carbon accounting to policy and measure focus. Might be more tricky to fulfil the “non-intrusive” principles. On this, it’s interesting experience with DoRs(?) – none of the analysts in the roster of experts focused on the contents of NAMAS – much more focused on inventories. Same issues will be raised.

Linkages between further guidelines for NDC/ their accompanying information and MPGs for the transparency framework Guidelines for NDCs will help Parties decide ‘what’ to report on hence have the ability to strengthen the transparency aspects. Negotiations on guidelines for NDCs and transparency framework should be strongly linked.

Reporting on adaptation Avoid undue burden on developing countries/ particularly LDCs and SIDS However, reporting on the impacts, costs and needs related to adaptation, and report on adaptation policies and measures to highlight the efforts at national level may be beneficial for developing countries Individual inputs on adaptation could be aggregated as part of the stocktake. Help understand whether international adaptation finance is effective Help learn from each other and from themselves over time.

Transparency of support Accounting modalities for financial support received should be developed. Will the accounting modalities being developed for the accounting of financial resources provided and mobilized through public interventions (Decision 1/CP.21, paragraph 57) apply to the financial support received as well? Currently unclear. Support should be provided to LDCs and SIDS to help them report information on financial support needed and received on a biennial basis, as is required from other developing countries. To get a clear picture of implementation To avoid LDCs and SIDS lagging behind and missing opportunities For mitigation aspect: we already have IPCC good practice guidance. Decision text – refers to IPCC. We don’t have good practice guidance for support. Way behind the game. Think tanks should come up with criteria. Institutions to come up with criteria to measure support mechanisms.

Define a specific mandate for work on how to report on non-financial support needed, provided and received. Currently mainly emphasize on transparency of action and financial support. Reporting on actions taken to transfer environmentally sound technologies to, and build capacity in developing countries Specific mandate to consider how developing countries can report on the use, impact and estimated results of the support received. This could inform better climate funding efforts in the future, and improve the likelihood of continuing and increasing funding levels.

Support for transparency Ensure that the funding base for the transparency framework is strengthened and made sustainable. Capacity building for transparency in the Paris Agreement is an important step forward Further resources will be necessary for an effectively functioning transparency framework. The support programme for transparency should not only focus on transparency of action but also on transparency of support. Avoid Capacity Building Initiative for Transparency focusing only on mitigation. Support for developing country Parties to report on support received as well (as it is a requirement for biennially reporting-except for LDCs and SIDS.

COP 22 Further discussions on how the built in flexibility based on capacity of developing countries be addressed in relation to reporting and review how the transparency framework be built upon the existing reporting and review system Transparency of support (including support received) The modalities for review and the multilateral considerations Linkages: SBI discussion on accounting modalities for financial resources provided and mobilised Further guidelines on NDCs global stocktake and discussions on the mechanism under the Article 15 Update from GEF on progress of the CBIT Discuss and agree on a plan up to 2018

Thank you!