The backbone of the Paris Agreement will be the transparency mechanism provided for in Article 13. Because of the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR), the planned national contributions (INDCs) of the parties have a huge variance, not only in ambition, but also in format. This is a nightmare for transparency and accounting. Finally, the goal is for all states to report in a common format. The new transparency mechanism is expected to be negotiated by 2018 and adopted in 2020 – codified in a timely manner to inform the next round of CNN (in the future, so-called INDC contributions will be designated as national contributions or CNN). The Paris Committee for Capacity Building (PCCB) is expected to benefit from the search for effective models for the training of Co2 accountants over the next two years. There`s still time. One of the great successes of the Paris Agreement has been the dissolution of the “single model of international environmental policy” in favour of a more diverse, more inclusive approach – as a result, the global community is getting wider purchases from more nations. This new approach has even attracted the participation of a large number of sub- and non-state actors and has opened up huge sources of income, while cultivating an unprecedented climate change dynamic. At the beginning of COP21, the NAZCA portal listed “nearly 11,000 commitments from 2,250 cities, 150 regions, 2,025 companies, 424 investors and 235 civil society organizations.” While this level of global participation and ambition is unprecedented and undoubtedly optimistic, there have been headaches for capacity and transparency. Developing countries may find it difficult to overcome the information burden of the quagmire of actors and non-governmental organizations that were created to support the Paris Agreement.
Climate transparency creates trust, promotes ambitious action on climate change and thus helps achieve the long-term goal of the Paris agreement on temperature. Organizations that are not, at this stage, within the scope of the agreement include: private sector obligations, private financing, non-state actors and sub-national authorities. However, some are in favour of their inclusion in the negotiation process and in the text. A WRI discussion paper proposed allowing the private sector and NGOs to submit proposals for “procedural justice” at five-year intervals. Many of the specific reporting provisions have been improved from the transparency rules in place to date, particularly for developing countries. The table below illustrates some of the key differences between the new expanded transparency framework and previous UNFCCC agreements. An effective transparency mechanism requires accurate and accurate measurement of greenhouse gas emissions from all nations, as well as reports and audits (MRVs). The Paris agreement is great in that it defines its structure, but the capacity to implement it is insufficient. Over the past two decades, only about 40 industrialized countries (Annex I contracting parties) have been required to report their emissions to the United Nations on a regular and detailed basis. In a few years, all rich and poor nations are expected to report their emissions. This means that about 150 nations with little experience in carbon accounting are brutally pushed into the confused world of greenhouse gas bills, many of which have little or no technical know-how in this area. Time to Register: FAO Enhanced transparency framework – Webinar 8 October 2020 t.co/2IieRDqxwZ #FAO#ClimateChange#transparency countries want to conclude these additional negotiations in 2020 and has also decided to review the guidelines for the improved transparency framework in 2028.
Article 13, paragraphs 11 and 12, of the Paris Agreement requires a review of experts. This expert review would represent the “V” (or verification) in THE LVR. The expert review serves as a mechanism for transparency and “the review process includes assistance in identifying the need for strengthening the course