Practical Solutions for Addressing Challenges in National Reporting for the Enhanced Transparency Framework: Cases from Developing Countries in the Asia–Pacific Region
1
Climate and Energy Area, Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES), Hayama 240-0115, Japan
2
Biodiversity and Forestry Area, Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES), Hayama 240-0115, Japan
3
Mitsubishi UFJ Research and Consulting Co., Ltd., Tokyo 105-8501, Japan
4
Sasakawa Africa Association, Tokyo 105-0001, Japan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(20), 14771; https://doi.org/10.3390/su152014771
Submission received: 8 June 2023
/
Revised: 18 September 2023
/
Accepted: 27 September 2023
/
Published: 11 October 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Air, Climate Change and Sustainability)
Abstract
:Transitioning to the Enhanced Transparency Framework (ETF) under the Paris Agreement (PA) from the current measurement, reporting and verification (MRV) arrangements under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) requires developing countries to enhance their national reporting systems in a sustainable way. There are various challenges that developing countries face in preparing national reporting under the existing MRV framework. The objective of this paper is to identify practical solutions as good practices in the short and long term to address the common challenges facing many developing countries as they prepare their national climate reporting. We collected information on practical solutions implemented by developing countries to overcome common challenges during preparation of their national reporting. There were some limitations regarding data collection using a country survey since we received responses from only six countries and two organizations, resulting in a small sample. Good practices for addressing common challenges include developing a national legal framework for transparency-related work, assigning a main coordinating institution, collaborating with domestic institutions for methodology development on emission reduction, and establishing university curricula on transparency. Replicating these solutions as good practices on how to deal with the challenges would be one way for developing countries to enhance their respective reporting systems in a sustainable manner. Furthermore, the paper highlights three underlying factors (efficiency, accountability, and sustainability) behind those practical solutions. These underlying factors should be considered important as guiding principles for building sustainable reporting systems in order to be able to successfully implement the ETF.
1. Introduction
Under the Paris Agreement (PA), the Enhanced Transparency Framework (ETF) was established requiring all countries to report their climate actions and support in a more transparent and comprehensive way. From 2024, countries will submit their biennial transparency reports (BTR(s)) once every two years, reporting on how they are progressing toward nationally determined contribution (NDC) targets. Both developed and developing countries will comply with one common guideline, “Modalities, procedures and guidelines for the transparency framework for action and support referred to in Article 13 of the PA” [1,2]. Although developing countries are given flexibility in light of their limited capacity, the ETF reporting requirements are challenging for countries because of the increased scope of reporting information and the frequency of reporting [3,4,5] (see Appendix A). Prior to the ETF, developing countries (non-Annex I countries under the Convention) are required to submit a Biennial Update Report (BUR) every two years. Under the UNFCCC, countries are also required to submit national communications (NC(s)) every four years, covering broader climate-related information. However, there was often a varied response to existing reporting requirements under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change UNFCCC [6]. For example, only 88 out of 154 developing countries have submitted their first BUR(s), and only two countries have submitted their fifth BUR(s) [7]. Therefore, establishing a systematic and sustainable reporting system is one of the key priorities in successfully transitioning to and implementing the ETF [8,9]. To this end, the practical experience and knowledge that countries have gained from submitting their BUR(s) can serve as a solid starting point for developing countries to enhance their respective reporting systems.
Existing literature points out that when developing countries are preparing their BUR(s) and NC(s), they often face various challenges and gaps, such as a lack of robust data, limited technical capacity and financial support, and insufficient institutional arrangements [10,11,12,13,14]. The UNFCCC technical reports found that when preparing the GHG inventory and mitigation action (MA) parts of national reporting, major challenges are a lack of technical capacity and experts, followed by difficulties with data collection processes including data-sharing systems, as well as a lack of coordination across the agencies and ministries involved in reporting [15,16,17,18,19,20,21]. Studies also identified other issues faced by developing countries such as a shortage of practitioners with the necessary technical skills for developing reports, insufficient coordination between national and subnational governments, and a lack of qualified experts [10,11,12,13,22,23]. In this study, we focus on three common challenges faced by developing countries in preparing BUR(s). Notably, these are as follows: (1) unclear role and responsibilities; (2) a lack of human resources; and (3) a lack of data and information with regard to reporting MAs. While these challenges in preparing BUR(s) have been recognized, there are less opportunities for those working on national reporting in developing countries to learn actual practical experiences from other countries when it comes to good practices. For example, under the existing measurement, reporting and verification (MRV) framework, an international consultation and analysis (ICA) process is conducted to analyze the transparency of reported information in BUR(s) and then to identify capacity building needs for developing countries [24]. However, due to insufficient resources [25,26] and other procedural reasons (e.g., limited time) [27], there has been a lack of meaningful participation by, and learning opportunities for, experts working on national reporting in developing countries.
The objective of this paper is to identify practical solutions as good practices in the short and long term to address the above three challenges faced by many developing countries as they prepare their national climate reporting. We collected information on practical solutions implemented by developing countries in the Asia–Pacific region and highlighted three underlying factors behind those practical solutions. These good practices and underlying factors can inform countries on how to enhance the current reporting systems in order to move forward and implement the ETF successfully.
2. Materials and Methods
For this study, a country survey and an Asian regional workshop were conducted to identify which practices were being employed to improve countries’ challenges in national reporting. First, a country survey in the Asia–Pacific region was conducted to develop a list of practices that served to address the above three common reporting challenges. Furthermore, the regional workshop featured open discussions for participants to select a set of practices that they recommended as solutions to common challenges in the short and long term.
2.1. Country Survey
Our initial questionnaire survey was conducted between October and November 2020 to identify a list of practices that address the three challenges. The survey was sent via email to experts working on national reporting from 11 developing countries in the Asia–Pacific region (Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Mongolia, Myanmar, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam). Those countries were selected because of their expected participation at the Asian regional transparency workshop. We asked countries to provide both their short-term and long-term practices due to the fact that some practices have already been implemented or will soon be implemented, while other practices require more long-term planning. Short- and long-term timeframes for solutions were set for 5 years and 10 years, respectively. The short-term timeframe covered a span of approximately until 2024 when the first BTR(s) will be submitted. The long-term timeframe is for 10 years, which roughly coincides with the end of the NDCs’ implementation period in 2030 for many countries.
The questionnaire (see Appendix B) asked respondents in each country to share their national experiences of implementing practical solutions to the three challenges. The respondents were practitioners, technical experts, and government staff associated with preparing and submitting BUR(s) and NC(s), including reporting MAs and GHG inventories in each country. We have received responses from 6 countries (Indonesia, Mongolia, Myanmar, Republic of Korea, Singapore, and Thailand). Two organizations (international and domestic organizations) (UNEP-DTU Global Support Programme, Mitsubishi UFJ Research and Consulting Co., Ltd.) also responded, as they provide support for capacity building on transparency in developing countries and carry out assistance on biennial report preparation for a national government (the biennial report is one part of national reporting submitted by Annex I (developed countries) Parties to the UNFCCC).
2.2. Discussions at the Regional Workshop
Following the survey, we organized a two-day online workshop, the Asian Transparency Workshop (ATW), in December 2020 to give experts an opportunity to discuss and share their views on preferred solutions [28]. On the first day of this regional workshop, a total of 39 participants from 9 countries (Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Mongolia, Myanmar, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Singapore, and Thailand) and 6 international organizations (The UNFCCC Secretariat, UNFCCC Regional Collaboration Centre Bangkok, Technical Support Unit for IPCC–TFI, UNEP, UNEP-DTU Global Support Programme, and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)) provided feedback on each solution [28]. The participants at the workshop were experts, practitioners, and governmental officials in charge of preparing national reporting and developing climate policies in their perspective countries. During the workshop, the authors facilitated focused group discussions by explaining the three challenges and providing a list of solutions that were developed based on the country survey. We asked the experts to select their preferred solutions from the list and to share the reasons why they selected those practical solutions. The group discussion allowed each participant to express their preferences and reasons freely and provided a space in which to discuss the listed solutions openly. Group discussions were recorded, and the authors double-checked their findings with the recordings. Subsequently we circulated a summary report of the ATW to all participants, and they confirmed the findings on selected solutions. The combination of the survey and workshop discussion allowed us to find out what solutions were being implemented and how countries selected each solution.
3. Results
3.1. Country Survey Result: A List of Solutions
Table 1 shows all solutions that were developed purely based on the results of the country survey. Only similar and overlapping answers were eliminated.
3.2. Workshop Discussion on Practical Solutions for Challenge 1: Unclear Roles and Responsibilities
Designating the main institution for coordination (option 1S-2) and establishing data sharing agreements and/or MOUs at the organizational level (option 1S-4) were selected as the most preferable short-term solutions. Option 1S-2 was favored as it could leverage existing institutional arrangements such as coordinating with the UNFCCC national focal point. Option 1S-4 was deemed beneficial as it would increase the responsibility of key ministries, as agreements are most likely to be established at the ministerial level. Participants mentioned that “MOUs with the private sector would increase their responsibility in terms of sharing data”. The least-preferred short-term solution was providing guidance supported by high-level officials (e.g., Ministers) (option 1S-3), as this would depend on personal relationships which could change for political reasons.
For long-term solutions, participants discussed ways in which to develop a legal framework at the national level (option 1L-1), including non-governmental stakeholders, as the most preferred solution. Countries recommended that this should include official legislative documents with clear definitions of the roles and assignments for the key ministries to increase their accountability. Participants mentioned that “a legal framework can provide a strong basis to establish institutional arrangements”. However, it was also acknowledged that developing and adopting such legislation may be time-consuming.
3.3. Workshop Discussion on Practical Solutions for Challenge 2: A Lack of Human Resources and Experts
For short-term solutions on this challenge, participants predominantly selected collaboration with universities and institutions within their country (option 2S-2) and internal training programs for enhancing their own capacity (option 2S-3). Option 2S-2 could address skill shortages in relevant ministries by leveraging academic expertise to produce knowledge products. Option 2S-3 would improve in-house capacity by utilizing guidelines and handbook materials developed by IPCC and UNFCCC. Participants emphasized “the need to enhance other ministries’ capacity building, so as to secure sustainable reporting”. The least-preferred solution to address this challenge was hiring national experts and consultants from other ministries (option 2S-1), as relevant ministry staff are often over-burdened by multiple tasks and may have limited knowledge of transparency-related work. The participants pointed out that “governmental staff are busy with their mandated task, and it is not easy for them to work on transparency reporting voluntarily”.
Developing university programs related to transparency issues (option 2L-2) was recognized as the most preferable solution in the long-term to overcome the lack of experts. This approach would increase the number of new professionals and experts with sufficient knowledge and would help to reduce knowledge loss in government agencies and ensure a sustainable supply of experts in the future.
3.4. Workshop Discussion on Practical Solutions for Challenge 3: A Lack of Data and Information
Establishing consistent methodologies for tracking MAs (option 3S-1) and appointing a focal point for data management in key ministries (option 3S-2) were identified as the most preferable short-term solutions. These solutions were seen as effective in monitoring the progress of implemented MAs and enhancing the accountability of stakeholders by clarifying data ownership, and would thus improve the transparency and accuracy of the collected data over time. Additionally, the involvement of the private sector in data and information collection processes could be enhanced by establishing clear connections with ministry focal points. Participants mentioned that “involving the business sector is key to collecting accurate data on MAs”.
As a long-term solution, the majority of participants selected developing new legislations and regulations including MRV guidelines for MAs (option 3L-2). This approach would create a legal obligation for the related ministries and private sector to collect data and information on estimating emission reductions. Additionally, it would provide a clear framework for monitoring and reporting progress on MAs. Creating a digital system to track MAs impacts (Option 3L-3) was also discussed as a possible solution to reduce burdens to collect data; however, one participant highlighted the fact that “digital platforms can be difficult to maintain due to a lack of financial support”. Furthermore, reorganizing existing regulations (Option 3L-1) was seen as useful, as some climate-related regulations have already been developed. However, experts highlighted that consolidating existing regulations may not cover gaps and lags between regulations.
Appendix C gives further details on the feedback and comments for each option.
4. Discussion
The recommended solutions summarized in Table 2 represent practical experiences implemented by several countries to address the identified challenges. As such, we regard these solutions as proven good practices and recommend that other countries consider implementing them to strengthen their national reporting systems. Notably, when expressing their preferences for solutions, participants emphasized three underlying factors (the factors are equal, i.e., one is not more significant and/or important than the others) as being significant.
4.1. Efficiency
Considering efficiency as one factor, participants recognized the importance of using existing arrangements (e.g., UNFCCC focal points) and research institutions in their respective countries (e.g., collaborating with domestic universities). In this way, time can be saved and limited resources can be used efficiently while still achieving the desired outcomes, in contrast to building the necessary infrastructure for each solution from scratch. Additionally, given that most countries already have existing domestic arrangements for preparing BUR(s) and NC(s), these can be put to use for the new reporting requirements under the ETF [9]. Participants also preferred to make use of existing training materials developed by international organizations (e.g., UNFCCC and IPCC) to build internal capacity and to improve monitoring of the progress of MAs. Sarr [29] highlighted that adopting the IPCC guidelines to standardize certain methods for domestic purposes is one way to successfully enhance a national reporting system.
4.2. Accountability
Another important factor emphasized by the experts was enhancing the accountability of stakeholders through mandatory and legal measures (e.g., establishing data sharing agreements/MOUs, developing a national legal framework) by clarifying the scope of work for each stakeholder (e.g., appointing a focal point for data provision, developing MRV guidelines). Legal approaches serve to establish evaluation and feedback mechanisms, resulting in different consequences depending on the quality of performance, which leads to enhanced accountability [30]. This is crucial for increasing ministry participation in national reporting, as it makes collecting data and providing information legally binding and holds ministries accountable for achieving these activities [29,31]. For example, Japan has adopted a domestic climate act, which mandates all relevant ministries to collect and report progress on their MAs annually [32]. Studies have highlighted that legal documents which clearly define roles in a structured manner would be the basis for strong institutional arrangements [3,21,23,31,33].
4.3. Sustainability
Sustainability emerged as the third factor due to the fact that participants preferred solutions that would support a self-sufficient reporting system in their countries (e.g., in-house capacity building, establishing university programs). Sustainability is also important for building a solid foundation for institutional arrangements in the long term (e.g., developing a national legal framework). Participants recognized that building domestic capacity and increasing the number of professionals in their country would be crucial for creating a sustainable reporting system, rather than hiring international consultants on a contract basis. Rebolledo [23] and Wenzel [22] highlighted that institutional memory and transferable technical skills in developing countries are often lost when most MRV-related projects depend solely on external consultants and/or donor countries’ expertise. Moreover, educating the younger generation is also a priority to promote the necessary skills for transparency and to enhance sustainability of domestic reporting teams [8]. Table 2 presents good practices for addressing the three challenges and highlights the connection between each solution and the underlying factors: efficiency (E), accountability (A), and sustainability (S).
4.4. Limitation of the Study
The targeted participants of our study included technical experts who have direct involvement in the preparation for national reporting in the Asia–Pacific region. As a result, this paper does not capture aspects related to a high-level political environment, its stability, or data sensitivity when discussing challenges and practices as solutions. However, a lack of political willingness and an unstable political environment could negatively affect timely and comprehensive reporting [4,34]. Therefore, domestic political buy-in is needed in order to improve government performance in preparing national reporting [29].
There are also some limitations regarding data collection since we received responses from only six countries and two organizations involved in transparency-related work, resulting in a small sample. This implies that the list of solutions and recommended solutions may only be applicable for this particular region and in these countries and may not necessarily be applicable for countries in other regions. Therefore, we suggest that it would be beneficial for future research to conduct similar surveys and re-examine the recommended solutions in other regions such as Africa and Latin America.
5. Conclusions
Learning from each other and replicating best practices are good ways to overcome common challenges and build strong reporting systems in developing countries, which is essential to a successful transition to the ETF. The existing literature often highlights various challenges in national reporting, but there are still gaps in providing good practices and experiences for technical practitioners from developing countries. This paper contributes to providing practical experiences as recommended solutions based on various cases in the Asia–Pacific region to overcome three common challenges in developing countries. Countries need to combine these practical solutions to ensure the best fit with their national circumstances when establishing a sustainable domestic reporting system. It is important to take into consideration the three underlying factors (efficiency, accountability, and sustainability) when implementing practical solutions as they reflect a practical viewpoint. Furthermore, we recommend that decision-makers and government officials consider these factors as key principles for establishing sustainable reporting systems to ensure a smooth transition to the ETF. These factors were developed based on inputs from staff and technical experts who are directly involved in preparing NC(s) and BUR(s) in their respective countries. This study has deepened the understanding of developing countries’ preferences when applying practical solutions to address reporting challenges.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, T.M. (Temuulen Murun) and C.U.; methodology, T.M. (Temuulen Murun), C.U., T.H. and T.M. (Takashi Morimoto); formal analysis, T.M. (Temuulen Murun); writing—original draft preparation, T.M. (Temuulen Murun); writing—review and editing, T.M. (Temuulen Murun), C.U., T.H. and T.M. (Takashi Morimoto). All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This paper was supported by the Environment Research and Technology Development Fund (JPMEERF20221C06) of the Environmental Restoration and Conservation Agency provided by Ministry of the Environment of Japan.
Institutional Review Board Statement
Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement
Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the country survey and regional workshop.
Data Availability Statement
Data sharing not applicable.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the respondents of the country survey and participants at the regional workshop. Furthermore, we would like to thank the Ministry of the Environment, Japan, for funding the Mutual Learning Program for Enhanced Transparency and the Asian Transparency Workshop as part of commissioned work for Joint Crediting Mechanism implementation in the partner countries in fiscal year 2020. The authors would like to thank Kentaro Tamura and Xianbing Liu from IGES, and the anonymous reviewers for their comments and input offered in the spirit of improving this paper. We also greatly appreciate Emma Fushimi from IGES for providing English proofreading.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Appendix A
Table A1.
Enhanced reporting information from BUR(s) to BTR(s): An example of GHG inventories.
| Main Enhanced Information | BUR(s) (UNFCCC, 2011b) | BTR(s) (UNFCCC, 2018a) |
|---|---|---|
| Methodologies | Should use the Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines | Shall use 2006 IPCC Guidelines Encouraged to use the 2013 IPCC Wetland Supplements Shall report methods used in GHG inventory Shall provide information on category, gas, methodologies, emission factors in accordance with IPCC guidelines |
| Key categories | Encouraged to undertake any key source analysis as indicated in the IPCC good practice | Shall identify key categories using an approach consistent with the IPCC guidelines With flexibility, identify key categories using a threshold no lower than 85% in place of the 95% threshold defined in the IPCC guidelines |
| Gases | Shall provide CO2, CH4, N2O by sources and removals by sinks; Encouraged to provide HFCs, PFCs, SF6. | Shall report CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, SF6, and NF3 With flexibility, report CO2, CH4, and N2O, and any of the additional four gases (HFCs, PFCs, SF6, NF3) included in the Party’s NDC are covered by an Article 6 activity, or have been previously reported |
| Time Series | Encouraged to provide a consistent time series back to the years reported in the previous NCs | Shall report a consistent annual time series starting from 1990 With flexibility, report data covering, at a minimum, the reference year/period for its NDC and a consistent annual time series from at least 2020 onwards. |
| Reporting years | Shall cover, at a minimum, the inventory for the calendar year no more than four years prior to the date of the submission | Shall be no more than 2 years (X-2) prior to the submission of its national inventory report With flexibility, have their latest reporting years as three years (X-3, where X is the year of submission of national inventory report) |
Appendix B
Pre-survey on
“Existing challenges and possible solutions related to tracking progress of mitigation actions (MAs) in 1st BTR preparation.”
This pre-survey requests the participating countries to provide their own perspectives, experiences, and ideas on possible solutions for addressing the five [5] common existing challenges related to the following:
- Allocation of roles and responsibilities;
- Human resources and capacities;
- Data collection;
- Data compilation and reporting;
- Data utilization.
Please keep in mind that these five challenges are related to a general framework of tracking progress of MAs, not focusing on specific sector’s MAs. Please be informed that the information will only be used for the purpose of designing the workshop.
Below, we are seeking your perspectives, experiences, and ideas on possible solutions to each of these challenges in the short (~5 years) and long terms (~10 years).
Common challenge #1: Roles and responsibilities between the relevant ministries and stakeholders in institutional arrangements for transparency-related activities are not defined clearly; therefore, ministries and stakeholders are not willing to engage.
Question 1-1: From your perspective, what could be possible solutions for a country to address this common challenge #1 in the short (~5 years) and long terms (~10 years)?
| Possible solutions in the short term (~5 years) | Possible solutions in the long term (~10 years) |
| Example answer: Establishing data sharing agreements and MOUs at the organizational level with key ministries [Your answer here] | Example answer: Establishing an overarching legal framework at the national level defines a clear mandate for relevant ministries involving in transparency related work. [Your answer here] |
Question 1-2: Is this challenge #1 currently relevant to your country? Please select one from below:
- ☐Highly relevant
- ☐Relevant
- ☐Less relevant
- ☐Not relevant
Common challenge #2: A lack of experts and/or human resources in this field leads to difficulty in establishing a sustainable reporting team.
Question 2-1: From your perspective, what could be possible solutions for a country to address this common challenge #2 in the short (~5 years) and long terms (~10 years)?
| Possible solutions in the short term (~5 years) | Possible solutions in the long term (~10 years) |
| [Your answer here] | [Your answer here] |
Question 2-2: Is this challenge #2 currently relevant to your country? Please select one from below:
- ☐Highly relevant
- ☐Relevant
- ☐Less relevant
- ☐Not relevant
Common challenge #3: Collection of the data and information of MAs is difficult because of the following:
- –
- No climate change-related divisions in relevant ministries and organizations to collect and monitor GHG emission reduction data;
- –
- No clear guidance/information on which data to collect;
- –
- No formal system to collect data and information of MAs and to report or share those collected data.
Question 3-1: From your perspective, what could be possible solutions for a country to address this common challenge #3 in the short (~5 years) and long terms (~10 years)?
| Possible solutions in the short term (~5 years) | Possible solutions in the long term (~10 years) |
| [Your answer here] | [Your answer here] |
Question 3-2: Is this challenge #3 currently relevant to your country? Please select one from below:
- ☐Highly relevant
- ☐Relevant
- ☐Less relevant
- ☐Not relevant
Common challenge #4: Compiling and reporting the data for the BTR in accordance with the Modalities, Procedures, and Guidelines for the transparency framework for action and support (MPGs) is difficult, particularly with respect to the following:
- –
- Tracking progress of NDC implementation;
- –
- Estimating emission reductions achieved/expected outcomes of MAs;
- –
- Information on ITMOs (Internationally transferred mitigation outcomes).
Question 4-1: From your perspective, what could be possible solutions for a country to address this common challenge #4 in the short (~5 years) and long terms (~10 years)?
| Possible solutions in the short term (~5 years) | Possible solutions in the long term (~10 years) |
| [Your answer here] | [Your answer here] |
Question 4-2: Is this challenge #4 currently relevant to your country? Please select one from below:
- ☐Highly relevant
- ☐Relevant
- ☐Less relevant
- ☐Not relevant
Common challenge #5: The data and information of MAs have not been sufficiently utilized to evaluate MAs’ effectiveness, improve domestic climate policies, and to develop next NDCs.
Question 5-1: From your perspective, what could be possible solutions for a country to address this common challenge #5 in the short (~5 years) and long terms (~10 years)?
| Possible solutions in the short term (~5 years) | Possible solutions in the long term (~10 years) |
| [Your answer here] | [Your answer here] |
Question 5-2: Is this challenge #5 currently relevant to your country? Please select one from below:
- ☐Highly relevant
- ☐Relevant
- ☐Less relevant
- ☐Not relevant
Question 6: Please provide, if any, challenges that you see as not being covered in the above listed five common challenges:
| [Your answer here] |
Appendix C
Regional workshop: Group discussion in each solution for three challenges
Table A2.
Feedback on the solutions for challenge 1. Unclear roles and responsibilities.
| Options of possible solutions in short term (~5 years) | |||
| Option 1S-1. Establishing a project steering committee or working groups involving key ministries | Option 1S-2. Assigning the main coordinating institution to direct roles and responsibilities for key ministries | Option 1S-3. Providing a clear guidance on roles and responsibilities supported by high-level people (e.g., Ministers) | Option 1S-4. Establishing data sharing agreements and MOUs at the organisational level with key ministries and non-states stakeholders |
| Feedback on each option | |||
| Align with existing institutional arrangements is important and collaboration with the national focal point to the UNFCCC |
|
|
| Options of possible solutions in long term (~10 years) | |||
| Option 1L-1. Establishing a national legal framework for government and non-government stakeholders (legislation and official documentation of the institutional arrangements) | Option 1L-2. Embedding climate change issues (GHG emission reduction) into key ministries’ agenda and strategic plan | ||
| Feedback on each option | |||
| When political situations change the main strategy and policy of ministries may change | ||
Table A3.
Feedback on the solutions for challenge 2. A lack of human resources and experts.
| Short term solutions (~5 years) | |||||
| Option 2S-1. Hiring national experts and consultants from the relevant ministries | Option 2S-2. Collaborating with domestic universities and research institute (including establishing a network of scientists) | Option 2S-3. Capacity building in a sustainable manner through trainings, workshops, and seminars (domestically and internationally) | Option 2S-4. Providing incentives to attract technical experts by developing a clear career progression pathway | ||
| Feedback on each option | |||||
|
|
| Help to attract more experts if incentives for work achievement could be provided | ||
| Long term solutions (~10 years) | |||||
| Option 2L-1. Securing the state budget for key experts in the relevant ministries | Option 2L-2. Establishing university programs (e.g., graduate schools) related to climate change and transparency to increase young professionals | Option 2L-3. Aligning climate change policy to establish a task force for dedicating transparency related work in the relevant ministries | |||
| Feedback on each option | |||||
|
| ||||
Table A4.
Feedback on the solutions for challenge 3. A lack of data and information collection.
| Short term solutions (~5 years) | |||
| Option 3S-1. Establishing consistent methodologies for monitoring the progress of MAs | Option 3S-2. Appointing a focal point responsible for data provision in the relevant ministries | Option 3S-3. Common reporting templates in a tabular format on an agreed regular time frame (e.g., excel sheet) | Option 3S-4. Developing a clear and sound Standard Operational Procedure |
| Feedback on each option | |||
|
|
| Can ease the process of data collection and information between the relevant ministries |
| Long term solutions (~10 years) | |||
| Option 3L-1. Reorganizing regulations related to climate change in individual legal systems | Option 3L-2. Developing legislation and detailed regulations including MRV guidelines for MAs | Option 3L-3. Creating a digital system to archive and track GHG emission reductions of MAs | Option 3L-4. Continuous improvement of information collection system (including evaluation and feedback mechanism) |
| Feedback on each option | |||
|
|
|
|
References
- UNFCCC. Decision 18/CMA.1, Modalities, Procedures and Guidelines for the Transparency Framework for Action and Support Referred to in Article 13 of the Paris Agreement. 2018. Available online: https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/cma2018_3_add2_new_advance.pdf (accessed on 11 March 2023).
- UNFCCC. Decision-/CMA.3. Guidance Operationalizing the Modalities, Procedures and Guidelines for the Enhanced Transparency Framework Referred to in Article 13 of the Paris Agreement. 2021. Available online: https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/cma3_auv_5_transparency_0.pdf (accessed on 11 March 2023).
- Dagnet, Y.; Cogswell, N.; Bird, N.; Bouyé, M.; Rocha, M. Building Capacity for the Paris Agreement’s Enhanced Transparency Framework: What Can We Learn from Countries’ Experiences and UNFCCC Processes? 2019. Available online: https://files.wri.org/d8/s3fs-public/building-capacity-paris-agreements-enhanced-transparency-framework.pdf (accessed on 11 March 2023).
- Weikmans, R.; Asselt, H.; Roberts, T. Transparency requirements under the Paris Agreement and their (un)likely impact on strengthening the ambition of nationally determined contributions (NDCs). Clim. Policy 2019, 20, 511–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aragon, I. Meeting the Enhanced Transparency Framework: What Next for the LDCs? 2019. Available online: https://www.iied.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/migrate/17730IIED.pdf (accessed on 11 March 2023).
- Umemiya, C.; White, M.; Amellina, A.; Shimizu, N. National Greenhouse Gas Inventory Capacity: An Assessment of Asian Developing Countries. Environ. Sci. Policy 2017, 78, 66–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hattori, T.; Umemiya, C. IGES Biennial Update Report (BUR) Database. 2023. Available online: https://pub.iges.or.jp/pub/iges-bur-database (accessed on 11 March 2023).
- Olsen, K.H.; Canu, F.; Konrad, S.; Cardoso, A. Nordic Capacity-Building Support to LDCs and SIDS for the Implementation of the Transparency Framework of the Paris Agreement. 2020. Available online: https://pub.norden.org/temanord2020-519/#31673 (accessed on 11 March 2023).
- Winkler, H.; Mantlana, B.; Letete, T. Transparency of action and support in the Paris Agreement. Clim. Policy 2017, 17, 853–872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dagnet, Y.; Northrop, E.; Tirpak, D. How to Strengthen the Institutional Architecture for Capacity Building to Support the Post-2020 Climate Regime. 2015. Available online: https://files.wri.org/d8/s3fs-public/How_to_Strengthen_the_Institutional_Architecture_for_Capacity_Building_to_Support_the_Post-2020_Climate_Regime.pdf (accessed on 11 March 2023).
- Touchard, S. Challenges for Compliance with the Enhanced Transparency Framework of the Paris Agreement Setting the Scene and Remaining Needs for Developing Countries. 2019. Available online: https://www.cuts-geneva.org/pdf/1908-Note-RRN-Compliance_Challenges_ETF_PA.pdf (accessed on 11 March 2023).
- Ellis, J.; Moarifi, S. Identifying and Addressing Gaps in the UNFCCC Reporting Framework. OECD/IEA Climate Change Expert Group Papers. No.2015/07. 2015. Available online: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/environment/identifying-and-addressing-gaps-in-the-unfccc-reporting-framework_5jm56w6f918n-en (accessed on 11 March 2023).
- Gladov, S.L.; Nathan, I.; Pedersen, M. Towards Enhanced Transparency in Non-Annex 1 Countries? Challenges and Options for Measurement and Reporting in Georgia. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arfanuzzaman, M.; Shaheduzzaman, M. A Report on the National Workshop On “Strengthening National Capacity to Meet the Enhanced Transparency Framework of the Paris Agreement in Bangladesh”. Ecol. Econ. Soc.–INSEE J. 2021, 4, 153–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- UNFCCC. Handbook on Institutional Arrangements to Support MRV/Transparency of Climate Action and Support. 2020. Available online: https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/Hand%20book_EN.pdf (accessed on 11 March 2023).
- UNFCCC CGE. Problems, Constraints and Lessons Learned as Well as Capacity Building Needs for the Preparation of National Communications and Biennial Update Reports. 2019. Available online: https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/tp2019_04.pdf (accessed on 11 March 2023).
- UNFCCC CGE. Problems, Constraints and Lessons Learned and Capacity-Building Needs in Preparing of National Communications and Biennial Update Reports. 2021. Available online: https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/tp2020_01.pdf (accessed on 11 March 2023).
- UNFCCC CGE. Problems, Constraints, Lessons Learned and Capacity-Building Needs in Preparing National Communications and Biennial Update Reports. 2022. Available online: https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/sbi2022_inf12.pdf (accessed on 11 March 2023).
- UNFCCC TASR. Technical Analysis of the First Biennial Update Report of Mongolia Submitted on 30 August 2017. 2018. Available online: https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/tasr12017_mng.pdf (accessed on 11 March 2023).
- UNFCCC TASR. Technical Analysis of the Second Biennial Update Report of Indonesia Submitted on 21 December 2018. 2020. Available online: https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/tasr2019_IDN.pdf (accessed on 11 March 2023).
- UNFCCC TASR. Technical Analysis of the Third Biennial Update Report of Thailand Submitted on 25 December 2020. 2021. Available online: https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/tasr2021_THA.pdf (accessed on 11 March 2023).
- Wenzel, K. GIZ-Support to Developing Countries on International and Domestic MRV Requirements. 2016. Available online: https://transparency-partnership.net/sites/default/files/u2605/klaus_wenzel_giz_giz-support_to_developing_countries_on_international_and_domestic_mrv_requirements.pdf (accessed on 11 March 2023).
- Rebolledo, E. Mexico Building a Comprehensive National MRV Framework. 2014. Available online: https://transparency-partnership.net/sites/default/files/mexico_gpa_long_1.pdf (accessed on 11 March 2023).
- UNFCCC. Decision 2/CP.17, Annex IV, Modalities and Guidelines for International Consultation and Analysis. 2011. Available online: https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2011/cop17/eng/09a01.pdf#page=8 (accessed on 11 March 2023).
- Dagnet, Y.; van Asselt, H.; Cavalheiro, G.; Rocha, M.T.; Bisiaux, A.; Cogswell, N. Designing the Enhanced Transparency Framework, Part 2: Review under the Paris Agreement. 2017. Available online: https://files.wri.org/d8/s3fs-public/designing-enhanced-transparency-framework-part-2-review-under-paris-agreement.pdf (accessed on 11 March 2023).
- Gupta, A.; Vinkhuyzen, S.K.; Kamil, N.; Ching, A.; Nadia Bernaz, N. Performing accountability: Face-to-face account-giving in multilateral climate transparency processes. Clim. Policy 2021, 21, 616–634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- UNFCCC. The Facilitative Sharing of Views under the ICA Process. Retrieved 29 September 2022. 2022. Available online: https://unfccc.int/FSV (accessed on 11 March 2023).
- Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES). Asian Transparency Workshop Report. 2020. Available online: https://www.iges.or.jp/sites/default/files/2020-03/Asian_Transparency_Workshop_Report_final.pdf (accessed on 11 March 2023).
- Sarr, B. Nine Success Factors, For an Efficient and Transparent MRV System, within the Framework of the Paris Agreement. Carbon Manag. 2018, 9, 361–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bovens, M. Analysing and Assessing Accountability: A Conceptual Framework. Eur. Law J. 2007, 13, 447–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vinkhuyzen, S.K.; Asselt, H. Strengthening Accountability under the 2015 Climate Change Agreement. 2015. Available online: https://climatestrategies.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/CS-PB2-Strengthening-Accountability-final2.pdf (accessed on 11 March 2023).
- Government of Japan. The Fourth Biennial Report. 2019. Available online: https://unfccc.int/documents/209247 (accessed on 11 March 2023).
- Singh, N.; Finnegan, J.; Levin, K. MRV 101: Understanding Measurement, Reporting, and Verification of Climate Change Mitigation. 2016. Available online: https://files.wri.org/d8/s3fs-public/MRV_101_0.pdf (accessed on 11 March 2023).
- Weikmans, R. Transparency from the Other Side: A Review of the First Biennial Update Reports. 2017. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320930674_Transparency_from_the_Other_Side_A_Review_of_the_First_Biennial_Update_Reports/references (accessed on 11 March 2023).
Table 1.
List of solutions to the three common challenges.
| Solutions to challenge 1. Unclear roles and responsibilities | ||
| Short-term options (~5 years) | Option 1S-1 | Establishing a project-steering committee or working group involving key ministries |
| Option 1S-2 | Assigning the main coordinating institution to direct roles and responsibilities for key ministries | |
| Option 1S-3 | Providing clear guidance on roles and responsibilities supported by high-level officials | |
| Option 1S-4 | Establishing data-sharing agreements and Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) at the organizational level with key ministries and non-state stakeholders | |
| Long-term options (~10 years) | Option 1L-1 | Establishing a national legal framework for government and non-state stakeholders (official documentation of institutional arrangements) |
| Option 1L-2 | Embedding climate change work (including GHG emission reductions) into the agenda and strategic plan of key ministries | |
| Solutions to challenge 2. A lack of human resources and experts | ||
| Short-term options (~5 years) | Option 2S-1 | Hiring national experts and consultants from the relevant ministries |
| Option 2S-2 | Collaborating with domestic universities and research institutes (establishing a network of scientists) | |
| Option 2S-3 | Enhancing capacity building in a sustainable manner through training and workshops (e.g., domestic and international) | |
| Option 2S-4 | Providing incentives to attract technical experts by developing a clear career progression pathway | |
| Long-term options (~10 years) | Option 2L-1 | Securing the state budget for key experts in the relevant ministries |
| Option 2L-2 | Establishing university programmes (a graduate school) related to climate change and transparency to increase the number of young professionals | |
| Option 2L-3 | Aligning climate change policies to establish a task force for dedicating transparency related work in the relevant ministries | |
| Solutions to challenge 3. A lack of data and information | ||
| Short-term options (~5 years) | Option 3S-1 | Establishing consistent methodologies for monitoring the progress of MAs |
| Option 3S-2 | Appointing a focal point responsible for data provision in the relevant ministries | |
| Option 3S-3 | Developing common reporting templates in a tabular format on an agreed regular timeframe (e.g., Excel sheet) | |
| Option 3S-4 | Developing a clear and sound Standard Operational Procedure (SOP) | |
| Long-term options (~10 years) | Option 3L-1 | Reorganizing regulations related to climate change in individual legal systems |
| Option 3L-2 | Developing legislation and detailed regulations including MRV guidelines for MAs | |
| Option 3L-3 | Creating a digital system to archive and track GHG emission reductions of MAs | |
| Option 3L-4 | Developing an information collection system including evaluation and feedback mechanisms | |
Table 2.
Recommended solutions and links with underlying factors.
| Recommended Solutions for Each Challenge | E | A | S | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Practical solutions for challenge 1: Unclear roles and responsibilities | ||||
| Short-term solutions | Assigning a main coordinating institution to direct roles and responsibilities for key ministries | Yes | ||
| Establishing data sharing agreements and MOUs at the organizational level with key ministries | Yes | |||
| Long-term solutions | Establishing a national legal framework (including legislation of official documentation on institutional arrangements) | Yes | Yes | |
| Practical solutions for challenge 2: A lack of human resources and experts | ||||
| Short-term solutions | Collaborating with domestic universities and research institutes (including establishing a network of scientists) | Yes | ||
| Enhancing domestic capacity building through training and workshops by utilizing IPCC and UNFCCC handbooks | Yes | Yes | ||
| Long-term solutions | Establishing university programs related to climate change and transparency issues | Yes | ||
| Practical solutions for challenge 3: A lack of data and information | ||||
| Short-term solutions | Establishing consistent methodologies for monitoring the progress of MAs utilizing IPCC guidelines | Yes | ||
| Appointing a focal point responsible for data provision on MAs in the relevant ministries | Yes | |||
| Long-term solutions | Developing legislations and detailed regulations including MRV guidelines for MAs | Yes | Yes | |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Murun, T.; Umemiya, C.; Morimoto, T.; Hattori, T. Practical Solutions for Addressing Challenges in National Reporting for the Enhanced Transparency Framework: Cases from Developing Countries in the Asia–Pacific Region. Sustainability 2023, 15, 14771. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152014771
AMA Style
Murun T, Umemiya C, Morimoto T, Hattori T. Practical Solutions for Addressing Challenges in National Reporting for the Enhanced Transparency Framework: Cases from Developing Countries in the Asia–Pacific Region. Sustainability. 2023; 15(20):14771. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152014771
Chicago/Turabian StyleMurun, Temuulen, Chisa Umemiya, Takashi Morimoto, and Tomohiko Hattori. 2023. "Practical Solutions for Addressing Challenges in National Reporting for the Enhanced Transparency Framework: Cases from Developing Countries in the Asia–Pacific Region" Sustainability 15, no. 20: 14771. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152014771
APA StyleMurun, T., Umemiya, C., Morimoto, T., & Hattori, T. (2023). Practical Solutions for Addressing Challenges in National Reporting for the Enhanced Transparency Framework: Cases from Developing Countries in the Asia–Pacific Region. Sustainability, 15(20), 14771. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152014771
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
