The world is falling short in keeping its climate commitment targets on track. Despite international commitments and national targets, progress remains slow, and many countries are struggling to implement measures that will keep global warming to below 1.5°C. One of the key tools to enhance climate action is climate transparency—as a foundation for evidence-based policymaking, accountability, building international trust—and creating some peer pressure to keep up with the challenge.
The Enhanced Transparency Framework (ETF), established under the Paris Agreement, was designed to improve the consistency and credibility of climate reporting across countries. By requiring all countries to submit Biennial Transparency Reports (BTRs), the ETF aims to track progress towards Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), implementation of policies and measures, and the provision of financial, technological, and capacity-building support.
However, many developing countries face challenges in implementing an effective transparency system. Unlike developed countries, which have been engaged in climate reporting since the Kyoto Protocol, many developing countries are new to these requirements. While developed countries have had time to refine and mature their reporting systems, developing countries must build capacity and establish institutional frameworks to comply with the ETF.
Climate Transparency is More Than Just Data Reporting
Climate transparency has broader goals rather than just to report data, such as:
- To build accountability and trust among parties by providing reliable data, which ensures countries are making progress toward their climate commitments.
- To guide policy decisions, which could generate insights into what works and what doesn’t, shaping more effective and evidence-based policies.
- Identify areas needing support, helping governments and international partners allocate resources where they are most needed.
However, policymakers underutilized climate transparency as a tool in climate policymaking. An Indonesian case study demonstrates how the country’s Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification (MRV) system—directly related to climate transparency—is frequently viewed as a mere compliance exercise rather than a means of promoting evidence-based policy and action. We must go beyond reporting for compliance’s sake to fully realise the potential of transparency.
Bridging the Gaps: Challenges in Implementing Climate Transparency, A Case Study of Indonesia
Although climate transparency is a big step in the right direction, it is not always easy to implement. Countries face technical, but also institutional barriers, such as:
- Institutional and system fragmentation (who collects which data?)
Climate reporting systems are often scattered across several ministries and bodies, leading to duplication, inconsistencies, and inefficiencies. In Indonesia, two separate reporting platforms—AKSARA (managed by the Ministry of Development Planning) and SRN-PPI (managed by the Ministry of Environment)—operate independently despite handling overlapping climate data.
- Lack of resources and capacity (how to bring data together?)
Adequate financial support and technical know-how, and digital infrastructure are necessary for a transparent and successful reporting process in order to build a robust monitoring framework and ensure data interoperability. These limitations hinder the efficacy of transparency systems in many developing countries, particularly in data collection, analysis, and system interoperability.
These challenges highlight a critical issue, where the effectiveness of climate transparency is not just about having a reporting platform—it’s about how the system operates.
Moving Forward: Beyond Reporting
Rather than following only a results-based approach (focused on reporting outcomes), countries must shift to include a process-based approach (focused on integrating transparency for broader policymaking and action). This requires:
- Strengthening national institutional coordination by establishing a dedicated body to harmonize climate policy, including monitoring and reporting among several government agencies. To ensure stronger climate policy and action, this body should have clear mandates and authority to align sectoral efforts, including streamlining data sharing.
- Investing in human and technical capacity to ensure an effective and sustainable transparency system. This require not least enhancing the resources and technical capacity by improving the digital infrastructure such as platform interoperability, increasing data quality, and harmonizing climate data to minimize fragmentation.
By integrating transparency within national and global decision-making processes, countries can move from merely reporting progress in shaping more effective climate action and policy.
A Call for Global Collaboration
Climate action is a collective responsibility guided by the Common but Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities (CBDR-RC) principle. Climate transparency plays a pivotal role in assuring that all countries move forward to achieve global climate goals. While each country must uphold its climate commitments, international support and cooperation are essential. For instance, as agreed in the previous climate conference (COP29), developed countries must go beyond fulfilling their obligations to also providing financial support to developing countries – and this requires data on where money is best used.
Climate transparency, governed under the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement, should be integrated with international climate finance mechanisms. Linking transparency efforts to funding decisions will ensure that countries receive the resources needed to enhance their reporting systems and, more importantly, translate transparency into action.
The shift toward climate transparency presents an opportunity in reshaping global climate governance. For this to happen, transparency must be seen as more than a reporting requirement, and rather as a catalyst for stronger climate action, building trust among countries and driving more evidence-based policies in addressing climate change.
‘This research has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie Grant Agreement No 873119, PRODIGEES.’
©PRODIGEES, IDOS
