U.S. Submission: Certain Accountability Aspects of the

Paris Agreement

  • The United States supports the inclusion of various “accountability”provisions in the Paris Agreement.
  • These should include provisions, for example:
  • calling for mitigation contributions to include an unconditional portion;
  • on the upfront clarifying information that is to accompany mitigation contributions;
  • on reporting on implementation of mitigation contributions/other aspects of the Agreement;
  • on the review of such reporting; and
  • on an additional level of scrutiny, should there be questions regarding a Party’s implementation (which some refer to as “compliance”).
  • This submission focuses only on reporting/review aspects of accountability.
  • In this regard, past U.S. submissions have suggested:
  • that each Party should be required to report periodically on GHG emissions inventories, on progress in implementing its post-2020 mitigation contribution, and other aspects of the Agreement, and
  • that such reporting should be subject to review.
  • We consider that this approach should be carried out through a single system, applicable to all Parties, with built-in flexibility that takes account of Parties’ varying capabilities and that encourages improved reporting over time.
  • In this submission, we provide a more specific proposal for the system, including modalities for reporting, technical review, and an international, peer-driven portion called “facilitative examination.”

Components

  • The single system for reporting/review that will apply post-2020 should consist of three components, drawing on both the Cancun approach and on lessons learned.
  • First, all Parties will submit biennial communications that contain information on their respective progress in implementing the Agreement (see below for flexibility provisions), as well as a national inventory report using the most up to date IPCC guidelines.
  • We anticipate that these communications will cover at least the following elements:
  • national circumstances;
  • national inventory report of emissions and removals;
  • progress in achievement of the nationally determined mitigation target or other action;
  • progress in assessing climate risks and vulnerabilities and in enhancing adaptation action, including through national adaptation planning processes;
  • provision of support, including with respect to finance, technology transfer, and capacity building.
  • Second, Parties' communications will go through a technical expert review to analyze the information contained in the communication, the extent to which the Party followed the guidelines, and to provide feedback to the Party on opportunities to improve its reporting in the future.
  • Third, Parties will go through a “facilitative examination” of the implementation of their respective mitigation targets or other actions. During this examination, Parties could ask each other questions about their progress, as well as share knowledge on lessons learned from implementation.

Flexibility

  • Many Parties face real capacity constraints in reporting. The post-2020 system should recognize this. There are several existing ways that provide models for addressing this issue, and we are open to discussing others.
  • First, the IPCC guidelines contain different tiers that allow Parties to implement the methodologies in a manner consistent with their capabilities. Parties are expected to, and generally do, improve over time and move from one tier to the next.
  • Second, the current biennial update report guidelines reflect a different model. The guidelines are uniform (not tiered), but they recognize diverse capabilities by allowing developing countries to implement them “to the extent possible.”
  • Third, the existing biennial update report guidelines also allow least developed countries and small island developing states to complete biennial update reports at their discretion.
  • Applied to the post-2020 reporting/review guidelines, we see the flexibility provisions being applied in the following ways:
  • First, tiers can be applied to, for example, reporting on mitigation targets or other actions and their effects. The tiers could range from reporting quantified future impacts for the most capable Parties to a qualitative description of outcomes for the least capable.
  • Second, “opt-out provisions” would allow a Partywith less capability to opt out of provisions that it was not able to fulfill (e.g., presenting long-term emission projections).
  • Third, not all provisions require flexibility. For example, a Party’s description of its national circumstances should not be constrained by its capabilities, and we would see no reason to include flexibility provisions for that item.
  • Fourth, the technical review would take into account the capabilities of Parties and tailor its feedback accordingly.
  • Fifth, in terms of the frequency of reporting, we would support a similar provision to the one currently in effect that allows for LDCs and SIDS to submit the biennial communications at their discretion.
  • Finally, these flexibility provisions would be complemented by a provision calling on Parties to maintain their current level of transparency or improve it over time. This would ensure that Parties did not use the single system to fall back from their current levels of reporting.

Lessons Learned

  • This proposal takes into account lessons learned from 20 years of reporting under the Convention by all Parties.
  • Robust and frequent reporting benefits Parties in a number of important ways:
  • First, compiling a report can help a Party identify and prioritize actions. Regarding mitigation, an understanding of the sources of emissions and the effects of mitigation actions helps Parties identify the most efficient policies to address climate change. Regarding adaptation, reporting on risk assessments helps a Party identify vulnerabilities and prioritize measures to improve resilience.
  • Second, transparency can be a tool for sharing knowledge and best practices between Parties. Mitigation actions that are successful in one country may be applicable in another. Public distribution of that information will enable countries to apply those practices.
  • Third, regular reporting helps Parties institutionalize arrangements needed for measurement and reporting, instead of relying on hired consultants or contractors – resulting in cost savings for the Party.
  • Fourth, transparency promotes ambition by promoting accountability and trust between Parties.
  • Finally, there is a need for the interface between donors and recipients in terms of transparency on support provided and received in order to measure and verify climate finance. Currently, there is no linkage that would allow for this conversation to occur. Such a dialogue can only occur in the context of a unified system that includes both donors and recipients.

2015 Outcome

  • The reporting/review system should be finalized at COP-21 in December 2015. It is central to the implementation of the Agreement.
  • The Agreement should lay out the basic requirement for Parties to submit biennial communications and to have their communications go through both a technical review and a facilitative examination of progress.
  • In addition, the Agreement could contain the following objectives/parameters for the system:
  • facilitating improvement over time in the transparency of reporting;
  • providing sufficient flexibility for Parties, based on their real-world capacities;
  • being sufficiently frequent to institutionalize reporting capacity and push Parties to continually assess existing policies;
  • building capacity for Parties to more accurately and precisely measure their emissions and assess the effectiveness of policies;and
  • over time, eliciting quantified estimates of present and future emissions for all Parties, except Least Developed Countries and Small Island Developing States.
  • A complementary decision adopted in Paris would set out the details of the system, including the guidelines for biennial communications, technical review, and facilitative examination.
  • Recognizing that the first round of International Consultation and Analysis (ICA) will begin in 2015, the Paris decision could provide for the possibility of updating in 2017 in light of any future lessons learned from that process.