Author: Paelina DeStephano

The last 24 hours have seen delay after delay for the closing plenary of COP24 as delegates finalize last minute details for the final rulebook. A few final draft texts have been circulating in these last crucial hours as new drafts tighten prose, remove bracketed sections, and finalize the modalities processes and guidelines (MPGs). The latest transparency text reflects a tremendous effort on finding acceptable agreements around flexibility, reporting guidelines, and timelines.

The fight over flexibility produced a fairly balanced approach in the end. Though bracketed MPG guidance referring to common but differentiated (CBD) approaches persisted until Friday, the latest draft has removed all references to CBD. Instead, a nuanced definition of flexibility prevails, but what does that mean? The application of flexibility will be nationally determined, only applicable to developing countries, and should reflect national capacities. Most provisions allow for the application of flexibility in determining the scope, frequency and level of detail in reporting, and the scope of reviews.

The events are over, just waiting for the final rulebook

While that may seem fairly lenient, countries that apply flexibility shall note constraints and time frames for improvement. Developed countries strongly advocated for this second requirement and its inclusion signals hope for moving all countries to a more universal system. Technical experts cannot specifically review determinations to apply flexibility, but they will report areas for improvement in national reporting processes.

On interesting backslide is from Paris Agreement Article 7, which declares all parties shall report inventories and progress on NDCs. The draft text instead “Also decides that the least developed country Parties and small island developing States may submit the information referred to in Article 13, paragraphs 7, 8, 9 and 10, of the Paris Agreement at their discretion.” This is echoed throughout the text.

As for the reporting itself, national inventories for greenhouse gases will be developed in accordance with the IPCC 2006 guidelines rather than the guidelines from 1996 currently used by many developing countries. There is flexibility on what gases need to be covered in the inventories. Traditionally developing countries have only reported on three greenhouse gases. Now if countries mention other greenhouse gases in their NDCs or previous reports, they will need to include them in their inventories. Countries also must report an annual time series of data, improving our ability to see trends and track progress.

The room where it (will) happen

Perhaps the biggest disappointment of the text is the timeline for the new regime. The text “Decides that Parties shall submit their first biennial transparency report and national inventory report, if submitted as a stand-alone report, in accordance with the modalities, procedures and guidelines, at the latest by 31 December 2024.”  This means that reports will not be used in the first Global Stocktake, scheduled for 2023, and will leave little time for the NDC revisions due in 2025. There will still be reporting under the old regime up until 2024.

Overall this draft for the Enhanced Transparency Framework has many strengths. Updating reporting guidelines and requiring time frames in light of flexibility allow for movement towards a clearer understanding of our progress towards the Paris temperature goals. For such a contentious topic, it seems, as of now, that the Parties have made great strides towards consensus building. That said – nothing is final until the (once again delayed) final plenary ends and the gavel falls.

At the end of week one, transparency remains a thorny issue. I tracked the negotiations on transparency throughout the first week, attended side events on the topic, and went to peer review sessions under the current transparency framework. Check out my last blog to get up to speed on MAs, FSVs, and the state of transparency leading up to COP24.

The negotiations on transparency were initially hard to track. The working group on the Paris Agreement (APA) had decided to make their informal consultations closed to observers, applying an amusing term to those sessions – informal informals. The first session I tried to attend, we got kicked out after countries made a few cursory remarks. It wasn’t until Thursday that observers were able to witness substantive negotiations.

Thursday also saw the release of a draft text that clocked in at 31 pages. The text was released two hours before negotiations and nearly every comment in session began with the caveat “We haven’t had the chance to read it closely, but…”

A similar thing occurred on Friday, when parties were supposed to meet from 10-11 to comment on the second iteration, which wasn’t released until 12:40. The meeting lasted ten minutes.

So what’s taking so long? Where is the complication coming from? The co-facilitators are tying to capture immensely different views on flexibility, so streamlining the many options is difficult. Increasing transparency is also highly linked with increasing capacity building and securing commitments from developed countries has proved difficult.

In the APA closing plenary several blocs spoke about the work that still needs to be completed. The Umbrella Group wants to see and end date for flexibility provisions. The Arab Group wants to see transparency divorced from any compliance mechanism. The African Group and AOSIS group called for guidance on reporting Loss and Damage. So, while the high level negotiators have the third iteration of text to guide their negotiations, very few of the big questions have been settled.

Almost like sitting at the table for the MA session!

It’s easy to get caught up in negotiations, but it’s also worth reflecting some of the importance of the current transparency framework. Attending the MA and FSV sessions gave me a chance to see some of the potential for benefits from the peer review process. I saw Argentina voice its concerns over segmented climate finance that aids consultants rather than building internal capacity. Ideally there’s a way to capture that knowledge and consider it in relevant forums.

I also saw Germany completely dodge a question on winding down coal production. China reported numbers for some sectors that had 42% uncertainty. While transparency is useful, there’s no way to demand answers in this forum. Even a strong Enhanced Transparency Framework will still allow for slippery answers and creative accounting. Transparency has garnered a lot of attention because it’s important, a concrete, binding aspect of the Paris Agreement. But it’s not a panacea.

Preparing to attend COP24 has been an absolute whirlwind. While we’ve spent the whole semester learning about the UNFCCC, it has only been in the last few weeks where everything has started to fall into place. I’ve been diligently writing all my final policy papers on topics in climate negotiations and I’m excited to put all that knowledge to use this week in Katowice.

This week I’ll be working with Natural Resource Defense Council (NRDC) tracking transparency and just transitions. The first week of COP will be full of meetings of UNFCCC subsidiary bodies, such as the Subsidiary Body for Implementation. This years’ SBI session will feature a few key events under the UNFCCC transparency framework.  I’ll be sitting in on the Multilateral Assessments and Facilitative Sharing of Views, peer review processes for developed and developing countries. Both MAs and FSVs primarily assess mitigation actions. Sessions begin with country presentations followed by time for Q&A. Sessions are conducted during the COP in English, without interpretation support.

While the Paris Agreement is the focus of much media attention, standard UNFCCC processes such as the MA and FSV are still taking place at COP24. Successes and failures from the current transparency regime are meant to inform the current negotiations regarding an enhanced transparency framework under the Paris Agreement.

It’s difficult to capture positive outcomes from current peer reviews because review outcomes are poorly understood. It’s inherently difficult to measure the collaboration and knowledge sharing that peer reviews are meant to engender. That’s particularly disheartening since the peer review process takes considerable resources in preparation, yet it is unclear what benefit countries receive. The peer review process also suffers from limited engagement. Seventy percent of questions in the first three MAs were from just 4 countries. Engagement is likely hampered from lack of interpretation and resource restraints for small delegations.

As parties to the Paris Agreement meet for COP24, transparency is sure to be a hotly debated issue. This year’s COP is the deadline for finalizing the agreement’s implementing guidelines so many technical details need to be settled. A key sticking point is likely to be the flexibility of the enhanced transparency framework.

Available at WRI.org

Developing and developed countries generally have opposing view on the flexibility of transparency modalities. Developing countries are pushing for flexible requirements for report contents and methodologies. They want a process that respects differences in capabilities and is less costly. The text of the Paris Agreement supports this interpretation by specifically mentioning flexibility, least developed states, and small island developing states. But the scope of that flexibility is up for debate. Discussion of differentiated accounting methods led to significant gridlock in Bangkok.

Developed countries generally prefer rigid modalities that allow for comparability and consistency. They support unified methodologies and strong guidance. In many ways, they seek to respond to some of the difficulties that have cropped up in the current UNFCCC regime. NGOs also largely support clear guidelines to promote robust nonstate reviews of ambition.

This issue has been intractable in the intersessionals, but there may be movement if developed countries can pledge resources for capacity building or a timeframe for ramping up reporting. This debate also comes at a time when the lines between developed and developing countries are blurring.

While I won’t be seeing the negotiations on the enhanced framework for transparency (those are next week), it’s exciting to watch the MAs and FSVs knowing that we may see the rules for transparency rewritten shortly.