Search

This study intends to identify conditions that determine the characteristics of donors who allocate a larger share of Official Development Assistance (ODA) to climate change mitigation (mitigation ODA) following the adoption of the Paris Agreement. The study uses fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) which allows us to examine necessary and sufficient conditions for donors who provide a larger share of mitigation ODA. Results of the study suggest that a combination of donor characteristics (stronger climate change commitments and better governance or larger economy) is part of the sufficient conditions for donors who provide a larger share of mitigation ODA. The results, which include a combination without economic scale (a combination of stronger climate change commitments and better governance), suggest that a larger share of mitigation ODA may not be a luxury action. The results provide theoretical positive prospects for the goal of financial mobilization under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change both from Non Annex II countries (developing countries) and the US which currently provides a smaller share of mitigation ODA.

本プレゼンテーションは、第１回グローバル・ストックテイク（GST）における“最良の科学”の在り方について議論を深めるため、以下の点について話題提供を行う。 第１回グローバル・ストックテイク（GST）も終盤を迎え、その成果は2023年11月のCOP28の目玉となる。 “最良の科学”に基づくGSTは、幅広い情報のインプットを受け入れているものの、成果取りまとめまでのプロセスはより透明性を向上すべきである。 COP28でまとまるGSTの成果は、各国の文脈できちんとその意味が理解されなければならない。科学者には、この成果の伝達にも大きな役割があると考える。

The participation and engagement of non-state actors (NSAs), including civil society, businesses, local governments, academia, and NGOs, plays an essential role in the implementation of the Global Stocktake (GST). NSAs can join the GST by making submissions and attending its technical dialogues. Their active participation fills various gaps in information by providing independent scientific and technical knowledge, which contributes to the “global” representation of information to be assessed in the GST. Also, GST outputs that incorporate inputs from a range of stakeholders, including NSAs, will more likely be accepted widely, even by governments, thereby generating momentum for enhancing climate actions aligned with the NDCs. With this in mind, the Independent Global Stocktake (iGST) Southeast Asia Hub (SEA Hub)* aims to provide a platform for NSAs in the region to make their voices heard and their activities more visible in the GST process, and later to provide feedback for countries to update their NDCs. This report summarises key discussion points of a series of initial interactions with potential NSA members in 2022 and presents the Hub's approach to contributing to the robust undertaking of the GST, consisting of the three main functions: 1) translate to national contexts; 2) increase in ambition; and 3) follow-up mechanisms. * The iGST SEA Hub is a joint effort led by the Institute for Climate and Sustainable Cities (ICSC) and the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES) with the support from the ClimateWorks Foundation. The ClimateWorks Foundation runs an umbrella programme called the Independent Global Stocktake (iGST), which is a consortium of civil society actors working together to support the GST process.

パリ協定のグローバル・ストックテイク（GST）の目的は、世界全体の進捗を５年ごとにストックテイクすることによって、次に各国が定める目標（NDC）の更新・強化に必要な情報を提供することである。本発表では、最新のGSTに関する国際動向を踏まえ、今後GSTがこの目的を達成するにはどうすれば良いか？について議論を深めることを目指す。IGESでは、UNFCCCの下、第1回GSTの国際プロセスに継続して参画すると共に、2022年からは海外機関と連携して東南アジア地域の非政府アクターのGSTへの参画を促す地域ハブ「the Independent Global Stocktake (iGST) Southeast Asia Hub」を運営する。

In 2020, the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES) in Japan2 and the Thailand Greenhouse Gas Management Organization (TGO) implemented the Mutual Learning Program for Enhanced Transparency (MLP) with financial support from the Ministry of the Environment, Japan. In the MLP, participants from the two organisations engaged in drafting exercises on Article 6.2 reporting in accordance with the draft guidance.

This was presented at a roundtable entitled“From satellite observation to national GHG inventories: inputs to the Global Stocktake of the Paris Agreement” on February 2022. A national GHG inventory is an essential input for the Global Stocktake (GST), which began from COP26, aiming to assess the collective progress towards achieving the purpose of the Paris Agreement and its long-term goals. All Parties are required to submit a greenhouse gas (GHG) inventory as part of the Biennial Transparency Report (BTR) under the Enhanced Transparency Framework (ETF). The presentation emphasised that developing national GHG inventories and making continuous improvements are critical to engaging with the Paris Agreement. It also touched upon the opportunities of data utilising Greenhouse gases Observing SATellite (GOSAT) in the improved quality of GHG inventories.

A national GHG inventory is an important input for the Global Stocktake (GST), which began from COP26, aiming to assess the collective progress towards achieving the purpose of the Paris Agreement and its long-term goals. All Parties are required to submit a greenhouse gas (GHG) inventory as part of the Biennial Transparency Report (BTR) under the Enhanced Transparency Framework (ETF). Since 2018, the Ministry of the Environment of Japan (MOEJ) and Chuo University in cooperation with the Government of Mongolia has developed a model to estimate CO2 emissions and absorption using GOSAT satellite data in Mongolia. The model results can be used to verify the estimates of GHG inventories. To replicate this experience in other countries, the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES) and Chuo University organised a roundtable entitled “From satellite observation to national GHG inventories: inputs to the Global Stocktake of the Paris Agreement”, with the support from MOEJ and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan (MOFA). The roundtable aimed to enhance understanding of the GST, the ETF and their linkage; exchange experiences on how GOSAT satellite data contributed to the preparation of Mongolia’s GHG inventory; and exchange views on how countries could utilise GOSAT satellite data to contribute to the development of GHG inventories.

1. Overview of Article 6 decisions and necessary arrangements for the participation to Art. 6.2 • Overview of Art. 6 rulebook • Major decisions and future perspectives on Art. 6.2 and Art. 6.4 • Necessary arrangements for the participation to Art. 6.2 (e.g. JCM) 2. Sharing experiences from the Mutual Learning Program for Enhanced Transparency (MLP) on Art. 6 reporting • Overview of the MLP and activities in 2021-2022 • Key discussion points on Art. 6 reporting • Future implementation

This report summarizes the key discussion points of the two-day Asian Transparency Workshop on December 13-14, 2021. The workshop aims to strengthen understanding of how to prepare reporting in Biennial Transparency Reports (BTRs) under Enhanced Transparency Framework (ETF). More specifically, the workshop focused on reporting mitigation actions under Article 13 and reporting information related to cooperative approaches under Article 6.2 The workshop was organized by the Ministry of the Environment, Japan (MOEJ), the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES), UNFCCC-IGES Regional Collaboration Centre for Asia and the Pacific in Bangkok (RCC Bangkok), the UNEP-DTU Partnership, and Capacity Building Initiative for Transparency (CBIT).

This presentation was presented at the Asian Transparency Workshop on Dec 2021. The presentation summarizes the key findings from Mutual Learning program for Enhanced Transparency on reporting mitigation actions under Article 13 of the Paris Agreement.

This presentations introduces aMutual Learning Program for Enhanced Transparency, whichInstitute for Global Environmental Strategies is implementingwith support from the Ministry of the Environment, Japan. By making a pair of countries, this program aims to support countries and organizations in learning and practising reporting of climate actions over 7-month period or longer. The program’s current objectives are to understand how to apply the reporting guidance under the Paris Agreement, explore improvement areas of next reports, including the first biennial transparency report (BTR), and strengthen a network of institutions and individuals on working on BTRs. In 2021, eight organizations from five countries (Chile, Indonesia, Mongolia, Japan, Thailand) participated in the program and worked on topics of Article 6.2 reporting and reporting of mitigation actions under Article 13.

Many countries have been making efforts to improve capacity for reporting on their climate actions and support internationally. To make a shift to the Paris Agreement's enhanced transparency framework, areas for further actions include as to how to ensure successful capacity building cases be spread even for countries with currently low capacity. This presentation summarizes the key findings of two recent studies the author engaged with related to capacity building for transparency in the Asia-Pacific region. It was presented at a COP26 side event, entitled as“The Challenging Issues of Environment/Climate Change Institution and Policy under SDGs Regime” and organized by JICA Ogata Sadako Research Institute for Peace and Development and its partner organizations.

This summary report presents the results of the technical analysis of the third biennial update report of Malaysia, conducted by a team of technical experts in accordance with the modalities and procedures contained in the annex to decision 20/CP.19.The author at IGES (Chisa Umemiya) served as one of the co-leads.

This technical summary report presents the results of the technical analysis of biennial update reports of Zambia submitted in 2020, conducted by a team of technical experts in accordance with the modalities and procedures contained in the annex to decision 20/CP.19. The author at IGES (Chisa Umemiya) served as one of the co-leads.

This summary report presents the results of the technical analysis of the third biennial update report of Thailand, conducted by a team of technical experts in accordance with the modalities and procedures contained in the annex to decision 20/CP.19.The author at IGES (Chisa Umemiya) served as one of the co-leads.

The objective of this paper is to provide good practices as recommended solutions to address thethree common challenges that developing countries often encounter when preparingnational reporting (e.g., BURs, NCs).Thechallenges are: 1) unclear roles and responsibilities among the related ministries; 2) a lack of human resources and experts; and; 3) difficulty in collecting data and information on mitigation actions (MAs).Countries aiming tostrengthen their national reporting systems fortransitioning to the enhanced transparency framework (ETF) can learn from these existing proven practices. This discussion paper is under review of a peer-reviewed journal.

This presentation summarises the key findings of the IGES's recent research on the assessment of GHG inventory capacity in developing countries with support from the Global Support Program/UNDPand recommendations for the on-going efforts related to transparency capacity building. The author presented this as part of the panel discussion of the side event, entitled as "Capacity building for transparency and reporting: sharing experiences from the Asia-Pacific region and beyond" during the UN Regional Climate Week for the Asia-Pacific. To inform the work of the COP26 Catalyst's Action Group on Transparency and Reporting, the aim of the side event was to explore capacity building in relation to transparency under the Paris Agreement, to lay out key challenges that Parties and partners may face in the implementation of the Enhanced Transparency Framework and to gather ideas and solutions from participants.

Commentary on reporting options under Article 6.2 of the Paris Agreement. In this paper, we provided a summary ofreporting options and its evaluation for the three information items which are required in the initial report and regular information under Article 6.2 of the Paris Agreement: 1) Timing of submission of the initial report; 2) Arrangements for authorisation of the use of internationally transferred mitigation outcomes (ITMOs); and 3) Quantity of ITMOs applied for corresponding adjustments (CAs).

Executive summary Under Article 6 paragraph 2 (Article 6.2) of the Paris Agreement (PA), Parties may take cooperative approaches in the implementation and achievement of nationally determined contributions (NDCs). The draft guidance of Article 6.2 stipulates, inter alia, the reporting requirements for the participating Parties to engage in a cooperative approach to ensure environmental integrity and transparency by applying robust accounting, to avoid double counting and other issues. This paper presents and evaluates possible options for Article 6.2 reporting, drawing on the results of the Mutual Learning Program for Enhanced Transparency (MLP) and the Asian Transparency Workshop (ATW). The MLP offered an opportunity for participants to engage in a hypothetical Article 6.2 reporting drafting exercise using the Joint Crediting Mechanism (JCM) as an example of a cooperative approach. At the ATW, participants then held discussions to share their views on how Article 6.2 reporting can be realised in their countries in the future. Reporting requirements with possible reporting options are identified, and these options were evaluated using two criteria (i.e. transparency and administrative efficiency). Timing of submission of initial report (IR): Higher levels of transparency can be achieved by submitting an IR at an early stage, no later than the time of authorisation or initial first transfer of mitigation outcomes. Alternatively, submitting the IR in conjunction with the next due biennial transparency report (BTR) can be more efficient in terms of administration. Methodology for calculation of the expected mitigation: Although IR requires information on expected mitigation from a cooperative approach, there is no specific requirement to report the methodology used to calculate the expected mitigation. Reporting on the methodology will certainly enhance transparency, but it may reduce administrative efficiency if it requires inter-ministerial coordination between participating Parties to ensure that the reported approach and amount is consistent. Arrangements for authorisation (governance): JCM participating countries can apply the existing arrangements set by the Joint Committee (JC) to carry out bilateral authorisation of the first transfer of mitigation outcomes. In this way, countries can secure higher administrative efficiency compared with unilateral authorisation by individual governments. Unilateral authorisation must consider ways to align the timing and authorisation arrangement within each government as well as how this relates with the process of the JC. Arrangements for authorisation (Level): Project level authorisation is in line with the existing project registration/approval process by the JC. Scheme level authorisation allows higher administrative efficiency as it is a one-time process, but it may be difficult for partner countries to regulate transfers of internationally transferred mitigation outcomes (ITMOs). On the other hand, transfer (credit issuance) level authorisation will be administratively less efficient. JCM credits issued by partner countries: JCM credits issued by partner countries (host countries) are not ITMOs unless they are subsequently transferred internationally. There is no need to report on those credits which remain with the host countries. However, reporting them voluntarily could enhance overall transparency. Quantity of ITMOs used for corresponding adjustments (CAs): Transparency can be enhanced if countries apply CAs using the quantity of ITMOs based on the vintage year to the emissions and removals of the respective year, as the actual year of emission reductions will be reflected in the emissions balance. In addition, if ITMOs are based on the vintage year, this will allow all mitigation outcomes during the NDC implementation period to be included, even if they are first transferred after the NDC implementation period. On the other hand, CAs using the quantity of ITMOs based on the first transfer year may enhance administrative efficiency if the vintage year cannot be tracked. Common information on the JCM: JCM participating countries can enhance transparency by reporting common information on the JCM in regular information as an annex to the BTR containing commonly-agreed information. Alternatively, administrative efficiency is enhanced if countries prepare and report the common information on the JCM separately. Timing of reporting of ITMOs towards the implementation of NDCs: Countries with a single-year target in their NDCs can enhance transparency of reporting if they report the use of ITMOs towards the implementation of their NDCs annually. On the other hand, they can enhance administrative efficiency by reporting the use of ITMOs towards the achievement of their NDCs once in the target year of their NDCs. Recommendations as actions for enhancing future reporting were as follows: For JCM participating countries: Coordination among the JCM participating countries Consideration on how arrangements for authorisation should be formed Possible refinement to the bilateral documents and JCM rules and guidelines For international negotiation processes: Consideration on how to support capacity building in countries participating in Article 6.2 Balance between transparency and administrative efficiency must be ensured

Thesummary reports present the results of the technical analysis of biennial update reports of Antigua and Barbuda, Uganda, and the Republic of Korea, conducted by a team of technical experts in accordance with the modalities and procedures contained in the annex to decision 20/CP.19. The author at IGES (Chisa Umemiya) served as one of the technical experts.

This report summarizes the key discussion points of thetwo-day Asian Transparency Workshop onDecember 14-15, 2020.With the aim to promote knowledge-sharing among countries in Asia for the effective implementation of the Paris Agreement’s Enhanced Transparency Framework (ETF), the workshopparticularly focused on a roadmap for preparation of Biennial Transparency Reports (BTRs), and reporting under Article 6.2 (international market mechanisms (IMMs)). The workshop was organized by the Ministry of the Environment, Japan (MOEJ), the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES), UNFCCC Regional Collaboration Centre Bangkok (UNFCCC-RCC) and the Global Support Program (GSP). Details of the event can be found from here:https://www.iges.or.jp/en/events/20201214.

The Asian Transparency Workshop organized by the MOEJ, the IGES, UNFCCC-RCC and GSP aims to promote knowledge sharing among countries in Asia for the effective implementation of the Paris Agreement’s Enhanced Transparency Framework (ETF). This presentation provides, as introduction to the workshop, the linkage of ETF and reporting under Article 6 (international market mechanisms), structure of the workshop, and how it has been designed based on the mutual learning program, a pre-WS survey and consultations with key participants.

This presentation provides, as introduction to the breakout group discussion inthe Asian Transparency workshop, the common challenges when countries trackprogress of individual mitigation actions toprepare the 1st BTR. The possible solutions (long and short term) in each challengeweredeveloped based onthe mutual learning program for enhanced transparency anda pre-WS survey with participating countries in the workshop.

This PPT is developed based on the author's understanding of the draft guidance of Article 6 paragraph 2 of the Paris Agreement (Article 6.2), based on the Mutual Learning Program for Enhanced Transparency using the Joint Crediting Mechanism (JCM) as an example. It does not represent the ideas of the Ministry of the Environment, Japan. It presents how the JCM process might look like in the context of Article 6.2, overview of reporting under Article 6.2, and possible options of reporting under Article 6.2 in terms of timing of reporting, arrangements for authorization, and quantity of ITMOs applied for corresponding adjustments.

The enhanced transparency framework (ETF) under Article 13 of the Paris Agreement (PA) builds on and enhances the existing transparency arrangements under the UN Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The objective of this paper is to identify to what extent the existing reporting of greenhouse gas (GHG) inventories and mitigation actions by developing countries are already in line with new reporting requirements under the ETF at the time of submitting their latest biennial update reports (BURs) in October 2019. The paper found that the majority of the 50 developing countries analysed are in line with the ETF requirements for “use of IPCC inventory guidelines”, “reporting of GHGs” and “reporting of gases affected by mitigation actions”. On the other hand, only a minority of them have met the ETF requirements for “use of Global Warming Potential (GWP)”, “reporting of consistent annual time series”, “latest reporting year” and “projections of national GHG emissions”. Detailed reporting related to Article 6 will also be new to many developing countries. These areas are the most critical for developing countries to prepare for reporting GHG inventories and mitigation actions under the ETF.

2021年11月に開催された気候変動枠組条約第26回締約国会議(COP26)は、気候変動対策における森林の役割がこれまでになく脚光を浴びた会合となった。開催国の英国政府は、世界の気候変動対策の加速に向けてリーダーシップを発揮し、世界リーダーズサミットを開催した。サミットの第２日目は「森林・土地利用に関する行動」と題され、英国ジョンソン首相、チャールズ皇太子、米国バイデン大統領などがスピーチを行った。このような森林をトピックとした首脳レベルの会合が開かれ、さらに世界のリーダーが気候変動対策における森林や自然生態系の重要性と協働の必要性を呼びかけることは、「未だかつてないこと」といってよいだろう。本稿では、COP26における森林関連の国際動向を報告する。 COP26を振り返ると、森林に対して未だかつてないほどの注目が集まった会合であった。森林と土地利用に関するグラスゴー首脳宣言を始め、新しい大規模な資金拠出へのプレッジに、加えてLEAFのような企業の具体的な取組みの進展も見られた。宣言やプレッジについては今後の動向にも十分着目しなければならないが、COP26において森林が注目されたのは、パリ協定の掲げる「今世紀後半までに世界の排出量と吸収量を合わせて実質ゼロにする」という目標に対して、「確実に吸収源としての機能を果たすことのできる森林の重要性」が強く認識されたためと言える。世界は、森林に頼らずしてネットゼロ社会を構築できないのである。COP26は、この考え方が、今や国際的に標準となっていることを示した。 日本においても、ネットゼロ社会の構築における森林・林業の役割を改めて精査する時期にあると考えられる。日本におけるネットゼロの達成において森林にどのような役割を持たせるのか、日本における持続可能な土地利用とはどのようなものかを検討し明らかにすることは重要である。日本の状況は熱帯の森林国とは異なり、農地転用による森林減少が深刻な問題ではないが、これまで管理されてきた民間所有の森林が、将来も適切に管理されるためにも、森林の価値を考慮した持続可能な土地利用を促進する具体的なメカニズムの検討は重要となるだろう。その際には、本稿で紹介したLEAFやそれに関連する国際動向、企業の考え方を考慮して制度を設計する必要があるだろう。さらに、日本国内だけにおいてネットゼロを達成することを目標に据えるのではなく、世界全体でネットゼロを達成するという国際的な視点も忘れるべきはない。世界全体でネットゼロを達成しなければ、地球温暖化を止められないからである。

Capacity building is essential to drive climate transparency. To discuss future capacity building strategies, it is important to understand the past trend and current status of capacity building efforts. This presentation offers two research analyses on the trend of capacity building with an example of GHG inventory development in Asia. Key messaged included: building basic statistical and scientific capacity is key for improving the overall capacity; the 8-year experience of intensively implementing capacity building support, especially for institutional capacity building, was outstanding for a country with higher capacity, like Viet Nam; and routinely monitor capacity building efforts and evaluate outcomes can facilitate directing resources where needs are high and expand effective capacity building approaches.

Capacity building support by means of international development projects is considered vital for developing countries to respond to the enhanced transparency framework of the Paris Agreement. While numerous transparency-related capacity building support has already taken place in the last 20 years, few attempts have been made to understand lessons learned from previous experiences for future capacity building. The aim of our research is to generate understanding of capacity building support related to greenhouse gas inventories by reviewing and analyzing project documentations of Viet Nam and Cambodia. We used these projects as case studies to draw lessons learned for other countries with varying capacity development patterns. We analyzed both the financial scale and activities of these projects undertaken. We identified the following key lessons: (1) capacity building support was accelerated after biennial update reports became an additional submission requirement; (2) more capacity building support tended to be provided to a country with higher capacity than a country with stronger needs; (3) a country with higher capacity had more access to institutional capacity building support; and (4) there were relatively limited experiences of approaches for capacity building projects in countries with high needs. Our suggested way forward includes establishment of a simple but common monitoring and evaluation framework to connect various organizations and projects and direct resources where it is needed most and the openness to explore new options for countries with high needs.

温室効果ガスインベントリ（GHGI）は、2015年にパリ協定で合意された国別の排出削減目標の達成目標を決定し、進捗確認を行うための基礎となるデータである。GHGI作成支援業務は、従来から複数のドナーによって実施されてきたが、事業のキャパ・ビル効果を測る手法や枠組みは統一されていない。本研究では、ベトナムおよびカンボジアで実施されてきた複数のプロジェクトを検証した結果、資金面と類型において傾向と特徴が明らかになった。さらに、適応分野など周辺領域のキャパシティ・ビルディングの評価手法の適用可能性を検討することにより、現在のGHGIキャパ・ビル事業の評価体系を改善することが期待できる。

This presentation explains how countries should make reporting of use of international market mechanisms under Paris Agreement, taking into account the implementation rules for a transparency framework adopted at COP24 in December, 2018. It is essential for countries to have GHG inventories as emissions data and information on transfer of units. Combining these two enables countries to generate emissions balance as basis for corresponding adjustments. The presentation also highlights that the JCM, which is an on-going mechanism, can help countries to learn how to do this required reporting.

This presentation explains trends of national greenhouse gas (GHG) inventories in submitted biennial update reports (BURs) by developing countries under the UNFCCC. It illustrates country's progress in reporting GHG inventories in terms of methodologies used, gases and GWP used, and years reported with emissions data, etc. In some cases, countries reported going beyond what they are required to report under the UNFCCC. Forty two most recently submitted BURs were covered.

制度:新 ; 報告番号:甲3232号 ; 学位の種類:博士(人間科学) ; 授与年月日:2011/3/15 ; 早大学位記番号:新5528

The presentation was given at the COP 27 official side event on "Sharing best practices and lessons learned from capacity building for implementation of Article 6". It shows our capacity building activities for Article 6.2 reporting - mutual learning program for enhanced transparency (MLP), and explains key findings from MLP discussion and lessons learned to enhance countries' capacity building to participate in Article 6.2 cooperative approaches.

This presentation highlights how enhanced Monitoring & Evaluation (M&E) can contribute to the improved effectiveness of transparency and capacity building. Three conclusions are: 1) Fill the research gap in identifying the effectiveness of capacity building approaches at the project level, 2) build M&E good practice guidance so that practitioners can apply M&E as part of their project implementation, and 3) make sure sponsors dedicate minimum funding (i.e. 20% of total project budget) to M&E practices. The original presentation can be found at: https://www.cbitplatform.org/knowledge-corner/cbit-workshops.

This brochure contains key findings from the International Market Mechanisms and Transparency Project, funded by the Ministry of the Environment, Japan, in 2018. The project was implemented by the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES) in collaboration with the Regional Collaboration Centre Bangkok of the UNFCCC. The brochure also introduces the following possible inputs to international process related to Article 6 and 13 of the Paris Agreement: For robust accounting: In order to ensure that robust accounting works, not only tracking information but also reporting that information in a transparent manner is necessary. Therefore, in addition to developing an information tracking system, arrangements should be developed internationally for reporting information from countries involved in international market mechanisms and administrators of mechanisms, e.g. using a common format. For transparency framework: Systems have to be created where developing countries can improve their transparency over time. Under the system, it is important that developing countries can repeat the process of submitting national reports and receiving reviews on those submitted reports frequently, so that they become familiar with the process and improve subsequent reports . For identifying and reporting capacity-building needs: Guidance under the enhanced transparency framework (ETF) of the Paris Agreement should cover more details of the approaches for identifying and reporting capacity-building needs. This can help not only to enhance transparency of capacity-building status, but also to effectively allocate resources for capacity-building activities in a country.