By Toby McIntosh
When read through a transparency lens, the recent UN “global stocktake” report identifies numerous information gaps related to climate change.
Some of the recommendations concern scientific information needed about climate change, but many of the recommendations call for more measurement of policies being used to respond to global warming , particularly whether they are working.
The words “transparency” and “transparent” appear 18 times in the 46-page report by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. The phrase “rigorous accounting” occurs four times.
The calls for transparency and accountability are embodied in a report whose overall message is sobering. “While action is proceeding, much more is needed now on all fronts,” according to “Key Finding 1.”
The Sept. 8 report by the UNFCCC is a broad “synthesis report” assessing collective progress towards achieving the goals of the Paris Agreement. The report “informs Parties about potential areas for updating and enhancing their action and support, as well as for enhancing international cooperation for climate action.” The stocktake does not assess individual countries, though many of the transparency recommendations are applicable at the national level. The report points some of its transparency suggestions at international financial institutions, businesses, civil society groups and other “non-parties.”
“Much more ambition” is necessary, according to the report, and “enhanced transparency can help track progress.”
The authors cite some advances on measuring efforts to adapt to global warming, but observe that the “ability to systematically monitor progress towards these aims is limited.”
Readers: For sure notification of new postings sign up in the right column. Or follow Eye on Global Transparency via LinkedIn or on X (Twitter) @tobyjmcintosh.
Others, Just Governments, Urged to Document
The first occurrence of “transparent” comes early, in “Key Finding 2″ (Paragraph 82), which asks governments “to support systems transformations that mainstream climate resilience and low GHG emissions development.” The recommendation expands on this by urging “credible, accountable and transparent actions by non-Party stakeholders (meaning international financial institutions, businesses, civil society groups and others) to strengthen efforts for systems transformations.”
An elaboration (P 85) states: “Rigorous accounting and accountability are needed to lend credence to non-Party stakeholders’ contributions.” Encouraging inclusion, the same paragraph says: “Non-Party stakeholders should endeavour to include and support stakeholders who are often marginalized, including women, youth and Indigenous Peoples, so they can all effectively participate in and contribute to these initiatives.”
The heart of the transparency recommendation follows in the next paragraph (P 86) that expresses concern that there’s not enough transparency about what non-Party stakeholders are doing. “Greater transparency is required on the progress of these initiatives in delivering on their climate actions,” the report says. “Non-Party stakeholders should use good practices in rigorous accounting to promote understanding of the contribution of their actions,” according to the report which says more accountability will provide credibility to their actions.
Systems transformation “can be disruptive,” according to “Key Finding 3” (P 87), which says, “A focus on inclusion and equity can increase ambition in climate action and support.” Expanding on this a few paragraphs later (P 90) the report says, “Inclusivity matters and those most affected by climate impacts should be involved in crafting solutions.”
Raising Ambitions, Tracking Progress
“Key Finding 4” (P 92) warns that global emissions will exceed agreed-upon targets and says there is “a rapidly narrowing window to raise ambition and implement existing commitments.”
“Much more ambition” is necessary says “Key Finding 5” (P 101). The report adds (P 105) that “enhanced transparency can help track progress.”
As countries set new goals (in their National Determined Contributions, NDCs), the report says (P 109), they should continue a trend toward quantifiable goals, and “to provide the information necessary to facilitate clarity, transparency and understanding of their mitigation measures and targets in their NDC.”
Several potential information gaps are brought up when the report (P 130) touches on emission-reduction plans by the International Maritime Organization and the International Civil Aviation Organization. “It remains important to understand whether and how these efforts are additional to action within NDCs, and rigorous accounting is needed to avoid potential overlaps across and within initiatives,” according to the report.
Questions about measurement also appear later (P 134) when the report addresses the obligation that parties explain why their NDCs are fair and ambitious. The report is not specific on this, citing various approaches.
`Limited’ Ability to Monitor Adaptation
Measurement issues are raised multiple times in the report, such as in a section (P 137) on adaptation to climate change in which the authors applaud progress but observes that the “ability to systematically monitor progress towards these aims is limited.”
The point is stressed again (P 144 (d) ) when the report says regarding adaptation efforts that as of August 2021, “only around 25 per cent of countries had a monitoring and evaluation system in place.”
Also regarding adaptation, the stocktake report (P 146) lauds governments that have communicated their adaptation experiences, priorities and plans, but appeals for more, saying, “However, there is extensive action and support on adaptation beyond what has been reflected in submitted adaptation communications.”
And it notes (P 148) that “progress on formulating and implementing [National Adaptation Plans] has been slow, especially among the least developed countries.” A total of 140 developing countries have embarked on the process of formulating NAPs, but only 46 developing countries, including 20 least developed countries, have submitted NAPs, according to the report.
The report (P 149) says better tools are needed to measure adaptation efforts, while acknowledging (P 154” that “there is no single procedure to measure progress in terms of adequacy or effectiveness of adaptation and support for adaptation.”
“In contrast,” the report (P 154) says, “the amount of reported international financial support for adaptation can be measured, as can the reported needs for adaptation support. Comparing these would likely show that the needs are greater than the level of support. The paragraph discusses the complexity of judging aid flows, concluding, “Judging the adequacy of support for adaptation will also require an understanding of the effectiveness of that support.”
Local Dissemination Needs Identified
Disseminating climate information is “a fundamental starting point for enhanced adaptation action,” according to the report (Ps 157, 158, 159, 160).
Among other things, the report states, “Systematically inventorying the impacts of disasters and climate change can enable better understanding of risks and the effectiveness of adaptation measures.”
While the report expresses hope that the effects of global warning can still be minimized, frankly states (P 165), “Loss and damage has already been observed at current global warming levels and requires an urgent response.”
It says further, “More information is needed on which impacts are reversible and which are irreversible. In particular, more understanding is needed on how to avoid and respond to tipping points, such as glacier melt, melting permafrost (which also risks releasing large amounts of CH4) and forest dieback.”
Climate Finance Documentation
“Directing climate finance towards meaningful activities and continuing to strengthen monitoring, evaluation, and learning can more effectively meet needs, particularly in developing countries,” the report advises (P 192). It stresses the need for “improving the tracking of effectiveness are important considerations in achieving effective support and delivering desired outcomes.” The report refers to recommendations on impact report made in reports for Biennial Assessment and Overview of Climate Finance Flows.
“From the recipient perspective, increased transparency and understanding regarding impacts can improve overall programming efforts and facilitate the selection of interventions that have the greatest climate and co-benefits in a given regional, country or sectoral context as well as increasing country ownership,” according to the report.
In particular, the report (P 193) notes that the fifth Biennial Assessment “documented challenges associated with measuring the impacts of climate change, such as limited reporting capacity of implementing entities and time lags between reporting on outcomes and impacts of projects.” This is particularly an issue for developing countries, the report highlights.
While multilateral climate funds and multilateral development banks “are adept at reporting outputs,” the report observes, “it is much harder to develop robust outcome indicators.” The section concludes, “Addressing gaps in knowledge on effectiveness across aspects of ownership, access, impacts and outcomes in relation to climate finance is necessary to facilitate transformational change on the ground.”
Addressing technology (P 209, 210, 214 and 215), the authors identify a need for further research and development “in all sectors, but particularly in “hard to abate” sectors and in technologies that are required to achieve net zero CO2 emissions by 2050 and to address overshooting in emission pathways pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C.”
Transparency of Stocktake Itself
The report (P 225) concludes by noting that there continuing discussion of ways to make information on the global stocktake information panel “more easily accessible, including through technical annexes and/or through an online searchable interface.”
Scientific Data Gaps
The report (P 227) highlights two “information gaps” for the scientific community to address:
(a) Information gaps exist in relation to emissions scenarios in which the global warming temperature temporarily exceeds and then returns to below 1.5 °C above preindustrial levels. Further research on such scenarios could determine the extent of CO2 removal measures needed, improve understanding of potential economic and non-economic loss and damage during a period of overshoot and identify proactive adaptation options for managing that potential loss and damage;
(b) More information is needed on which climate change impacts are reversible and which are irreversible. In particular, more understanding is needed of how to avoid and respond to tipping points.
