What's Happening?
The transparency rules of the Paris Agreement, known as the modalities, procedures, and guidelines (MPGs), are scheduled for their first review and update by 2028. These rules dictate how countries report their climate progress through Biennial Transparency
Reports (BTRs), how technical experts assess these reports, and how countries discuss their national climate achievements. The mandate for this review was built into decision 18/CMA.1, recognizing that the MPGs were not meant to be static. However, a major challenge is that there is no agreed-upon start date or clear process for this review. The year 2028 will also be busy with the conclusion of the second global stocktake (GST2), potentially straining the capacity of Parties to engage in another technical process. Experts suggest that front-loading the technical work for the MPG review well before COP33 (the effective deadline) is crucial to ensure a thorough and careful consideration before the political phase of GST2 begins.
Why It's Important?
The transparency rules are fundamental to the Paris Agreement's effectiveness, as they provide the mechanism for accountability and progress tracking for nationally determined contributions (NDCs). Without robust and updated MPGs, the credibility of countries' climate commitments and the overall ambition-raising cycle of the Paris Agreement could be undermined. A delayed or rushed review could mean that the transparency system fails to reflect the latest developments in climate policy, such as COP30’s indicators for global adaptation goals, COP29’s climate finance targets, and Article 6 carbon market rules. This could lead to a lack of comprehensive and accurate data, making it difficult to assess global progress towards the 1.5°C target. For the U.S., as a significant contributor to global emissions and a key player in international climate negotiations, ensuring the integrity and effectiveness of these transparency rules is vital for its own climate policy implementation and its role in fostering global climate action. A well-executed review can enhance trust among nations and provide clearer pathways for investment and policy adjustments.
What's Next?
Parties are urged to signal a clear start to the MPG review in 2027, ideally at COP31, and to decide on a clarified deadline, such as COP33 or SBSTA69. The review should focus on lessons learned from Party experiences with BTR preparation, technical expert review findings, and the Facilitative Multilateral Consideration of Progress (FMCP). It is crucial to keep the MPG review focused to improve coherence and reduce ambiguity without reopening core political debates. If the review is not finalized by 2028, the transparency system may not fully incorporate the latest Paris Agreement architecture until the mid-2030s, potentially missing the opportunity to inform GST3 and NDC5s for 2045. This delay could give credence to criticisms that the multilateral system is too slow to respond to the climate crisis. Proactive planning and early technical work are essential to avoid a rushed process that could lead to political interventions displacing technical nuances.
Beyond the Headlines
The technical nature of the MPG review often keeps it out of the public spotlight, yet its implications are profound for the future of global climate governance. The challenge lies not just in updating technical guidelines but in navigating the political complexities and competing priorities of diverse nations. The potential for a rushed review to compromise technical nuance in favor of political expediency highlights a deeper tension between scientific necessity and political feasibility in international climate negotiations. Furthermore, the review presents an opportunity to make the transparency system more accessible and useful to a wider audience, potentially fostering greater public engagement and accountability. The long-term success of the Paris Agreement hinges on its ability to adapt and evolve, and the MPG review is a critical test of this adaptability. Failure to conduct a timely and comprehensive review could erode confidence in the multilateral climate process, impacting global efforts to address climate change for decades to come.
