Climate change

Global Forum on the Environment and Climate Change - organised by the Climate Change Expert Group (CCXG) - October 2018


The CCXG Global Forum on the Environment and Climate Change was held on 8-9 October 2018 at the OECD Conference Centre in Paris. This Forum brought together around 200 delegates from a wide range of developed and developing countries, as well as representatives from business, inter-governmental organisations, research organisations, environmental NGOs and other relevant institutions.

The Forum session on Facilitating reporting of adaptation under the Paris Agreement's Enhanced Transparency Framework was organised in partnership with the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR). The issues discussed included operationalising flexibility in reporting; the linkages between articles 4, 6 and 13 of the Paris Agreement as related to tracking progress; ambition and ways of tracking collective progress. 

The Forum provided a neutral space outside of the UNFCCC negotiations for participants to develop a shared understanding of the transparency-related provisions in the Paris Agreement and how these might be implemented. The Forum was an opportunity to have an objective discussion of the priorities and timeline for related work to be undertaken by the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Paris Agreement and other subsidiary bodies under the UNFCCC.


summaries of breakout GROUPS



Chair: Helen Plume
Facilitator: Helen Plume, Chair of the Climate Change Expert Group

9:45 – 10:45 Opening Plenary

The opening plenary framed the urgency of climate action in two key areas: infrastructure investment and the energy sector. The two presentations, drawing on insights from OECD and IEA work, aimed to provide both information and a broader context for subsequent discussions focussed on the implementation of the Paris Agreement. Anthony Cox presented insights from recent OECD work on bringing more public and private financial flows in line with the Paris goals, in particular in infrastructure finance. Laszlo Varro presented a snapshot of the energy sector, with a focus on electricity, and key headwinds and tailwinds on the path to a sustainable energy transition.

11:15 – 12:45 Breakout Group 1: Facilitating reporting of support received and needed under the Paris Agreement’s Enhanced Transparency Framework, organised in partnership with CSIR

Facilitator: Jonas Mphepya, CSIR 

There is significant variation in the scope, content, coverage and clarity of countries’ adaptation responses as outlined in their (I)NDCs, and much leeway built in to country reporting of adaptation under the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement. This session discussed how some countries are identifying progress in adaptation, and outlined how improved reporting on adaptation could be facilitated.

Discussion questions:

  1. Has your country tracked or will your country track progress to adaptation objectives, and if so how did you or will you go about identifying what progress entails? 
  2. What are the key information gaps to assessing progress?

11:15 – 12:45 Breakout Group A : Information needed to track progress towards (I)NDCs: relevant linkages and potential challenges
Co-facilitators: Santosh Manivannan, Singapore and Anke Herold, Öko-Institut

This session explored linkages between Article 4 and reporting under Article 13, with a focus on information needed to track progress towards (I)NDCs. It explored the potential contents, the relationship between quantitative and qualitative information, as well as questions of time dimension related to the reporting.

Discussion questions:

  1. What information do we need to track progress towards (I)NDCs and how much of this information is common for different (I)NDCs?
  2. Could certain information to track progress be more relevant to provide at different stages of the NDC implementation period and how can MPGs take into account these timing aspects?

    14:15– 16:00 Breakout Group 2: Flexibility in reporting–tracking progress to non-BAU mitigation targets
    Facilitator: Laurence Ahoussou, Canada 

    (I)NDCs include many different forms of mitigation targets, and the coverage of (I)NDCs can also vary. This means that the information required to track progress towards (I)NDC mitigation targets will also vary.

    This session explored the different information needs of tracking progress to different types of mitigation (I)NDC target, experience with tracking and reporting this information to date, and highlighted possible reporting flexibility options. 


    Discussion questions:

    1. Have you identified how to assess progress towards your non-BAU target? If not, what are the reasons for this? If yes, do you already track the necessary information?
    2. What challenges do you foresee in being able to track and report on progress in future?

    14:15 – 16:00 Breakout Group B: Article 6 of the Paris Agreement: potential reporting and review links with the ETF
    Facilitator: Felipe de León, Costa Rica

    This session first examined what information related to Article 6 could be reported through the ETF and what the MPGs need to consider in order to treat this information. The session also explored the potential role and implications for the Technical Expert Review (TER) in reviewing Article 6 information.

    Discussion questions:

    1. What could be relevant quantitative and qualitative information on Article 6 potentially reported under the ETF?
    2. Will there be issues specific to the use of cooperative approaches under Article 6 that the TER will need to consider?

    16:30 – 18:00  Breakout Group 3: Flexibility in reporting – tracking progress to BAU mitigation targets
    Facilitator: Laurence Ahoussou, Canada

    Several Parties that submitted a (I)NDC with a greenhouse gas target expressed their target against a future baseline, or “business-as-usual” (BAU) emissions level. While the most common type of greenhouse gas target among (I)NDCs, BAU targets have specific features which can lead to challenges in setting the target, as well as in assessing progress towards the target.

    In this session speakers and participants shared experience with assessing progress with such targets, identified capacity-related challenges, and discussed implications for how MPGs can accommodate varying capacity levels and encourage improved reporting.

    Discussion questions:

    1. In your country, have you identified how to assess progress towards the BAU target? If no, what are the reasons for this? If yes, is the necessary information already tracked?
    2. What challenges do you foresee in being able to track and report on progress in future?

    16:30 – 18:00  Breakout Group C: Country experiences: What facilitates mitigation ambition?
    Co-facilitators: Leon Charles, Grenada and Marianne Karlsen, Norway   

    This session examined a few country experiences to identify what economic, political and technical/technological conditions may have enabled the process of ramping up mitigation ambition. It also discussed how ambition translates into policies or policy objectives.

    Discussion questions:

    1. What are the drivers for enhancing and maintaining mitigation ambition? 
    2. What are the identified opportunities and challenges associated with climate change mitigation?


    9:00 – 10:30 Breakout Group 4: Facilitating reporting of support received and needed under the Paris Agreement’s Enhanced Transparency Framework
    Co-facilitators: Janine Felson, Belize and Yamide Dagnet, WRI

    Since 2016, the CCXG Global Forum has invited speakers to share experiences with reporting on finance received and needed, and in March 2018 it also examined the question of how to report on technology and capacity-building support needed and received.

    From the perspective of developing MPGs that can facilitate reporting, this session invited speakers and participants to discuss substantively what kinds of tools, processes, or guidance would enable better information, and in turn improved reporting of that information.

    Discussion questions:

    1. What has enabled and what has hindered tracking of support received and/or assessments of support needed in your country?
    2. In what areas are Parties focusing efforts on improving their ability to track/assess and report such information, and how could MPGs support this?


    9:00 –10:30 Breakout Group D: Technical Expert Review: relevant experience and options
    Co-facilitators: Santosh Manivannan, Singapore and Anke Herold, Öko-Institut

    This session examined the relevant past experience with review and identified the relevant lessons learned for the Technical Expert Review (TER) under the ETF. The session specifically looked into possible options for the review of elements reported under the ETF while considering flexibility provisions in the Paris Agreement.


    Discussion questions:

    1. How have previous reviews facilitated improvements in reporting?
    2. Could future reviews assess a Party’s implementation and achievement of its NDC, and if so, how would this be done?  

    11:00 –12:30 Breakout Group 5Flexibility in reporting – links to review, FMCP and encouraging improvements in reporting over time
    Co-facilitators: Janine Felson, Belize and Yamide Dagnet, WRI

    Beyond MPGs for reporting, the Paris Agreement’s enhanced transparency system puts in place other processes, namely the Technical Expert Review (TER) and Facilitative Multilateral Consideration of Progress (FMCP). These processes may also play a role in understanding more specifically how capacity constraints relate to reporting, and facilitating ways of overcoming such constraints in line with country needs and priorities.

    Speakers and particpants were invited to discuss and share views on how these processes may together improve reporting over time, from the perspective of their countries or their perspective as experts working with several countries.

    Discussion questions:

    1. Where are priority areas to improve reporting over time, either in your country or those you have worked with? Where have countries focussed efforts to improve in the past, and what led to these efforts being successful or not?
    2. How could different processes and mechanisms under the Paris Agreement facilitate improved reporting in your country?

    11:00 –12:30 Breakout Group EFacilitating Ambition - ways of measuring and tracking collective progress under Article 14
    Co-facilitators: Leon Charles, Grenada and Marianne Karlsen, Norway

    This session explored how collective progress could be measured and tracked. First, it focused on how collective progress can be assessed from a technical point of view: what are the information needs; what are the underlying assumptions; and how can progress be tracked against the long-term goals under Article 2.1 of the Paris Agreement? Second, it discussed the technical and political challenges – as well as opportunities – of a 5-yearly global stocktake process under the Paris Agreement.

    • Niklas Höhne, NewClimate Institute
    • Kaveh Guilanpour, Marshall Islands 
    • Cristina Carreiras, European Commission

    Discussion questions:

    1. What could be core informational requirements from individual Parties for the global stock-take?
    2. What outcomes from the global stocktake will be most useful to enhancing action and support, including international co-operation?


    13:30 – 15:30 Information session on the IPCC special report on 1.5 Degrees Celsius
    Facilitator: Helen Plume, Chair of the Climate Change Expert Group

    The highly-anticipated IPCC 1.5ºC Special Report was released on 8 October and had an important role in informing international and national climate responses. This session highlighted the key messages of the Special Report, including on the impacts of a 1.5ºC global warming on natural and human systems and on transformational options of mitigation pathways compatible 1.5ºC. The session explored how to enhance global climate responses while promoting sustainable development, poverty eradication, reducing inequalities as well as ensuring justice and equity.


    • Joeri Rogelj, IIASA and Grantham Institute, Imperial College London
    • H.E. Marry Robinson, Mary Robinson Foundation - Climate Justice


    16:00 – 16:30 Plenary: Co-facilitators’ key takeaways from breakout groups 
    Facilitator: Helen Plume, Chair of the Climate Change Expert Group

    The (co)-facilitators shared their three key takeaways from each breakout group discussion.


    16:30 – 17:00 Closing Plenary: Reflections on next steps to finalise the Paris Agreement “Rulebook” 
    Facilitator: Helen Plume, Chair of the Climate Change Expert Group

    In this session, representatives from the COP23 and COP24 Presidencies shared insights on the progress towards elaborating and finalising the “Paris Rulebook”.

    • H.E. Deo Saran, Fiji
    • Grzegorz Grobicki, Poland




    Related Documents