(C) PLOS One
This story was originally published by PLOS One and is unaltered.
 . . . . . . . . . .



What constitutes “institutional arrangements” for Member State reporting within the UNFCCC and Paris Agreement? [1]

['Jacinta Barrins', 'Ryan Institute', 'Agriculture', 'Food Systems', 'Bioeconomy Research Centre', 'University Of Galway', 'Galway', 'Peter C. Mckeown', 'Una Murray', 'Charles Spillane']

Date: 2025-02 

All Member States are expected to put in place sustainable institutional arrangements for implementation of the United Nations Framework Convention for Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Paris Agreement, and to describe these in their reporting transparency obligations. Institutional arrangements provide the mechanism by which work gets visioned, planned, coordinated, implemented, monitored and reported on and are therefore fundamental to implementing the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement. Without sustainable institutional arrangements, implementation of Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) will be jeopardised. Consequently, it is important to clearly identify what constitutes institutional arrangement, both from the perspective of reporting of what is in place and what is optimal for just transitions to achieve UNFCCC and Paris Agreement goals. The Consultative Group of Experts (CGE) and UNFCCC recommend five separate components for describing institutional arrangements for Member States to support their measurement, verification and reporting (MRV), as well as for climate action transparency and support. These components are: i) organization mandates; (ii) expertise; (iii) data flows; (iv) systems and tools; and (v) stakeholder engagement. In this study, we propose that describing institutional arrangements is akin to describing the components of an organisation (e.g. a government, ministry or agency). The Star Organisational Model, with its five inter-linked components of strategy, structure, processes, people and rewards is a useful additional approach for defining what constitutes institutional arrangements. Establishing sustainable institutional arrangements is challenging for developing countries, and yet critical for implementing the UNFCCC-Paris Agreement at country level. By applying the Star model to six developing countries to ascertain its usefulness for reporting on institutional arrangements related to MRV, we conclude that the Star Model offers a valuable additional method for more effectively delineating and documenting institutional arrangements, including describing existing organisational arrangements and envisioning ideal setups, in the context of the UNFCCC and Paris Agreement agendas.

Copyright: © 2025 Barrins et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Following an outline of how the UNFCCC-CGE propose Parties describe their institutional arrangement components, we propose an additional approach for consideration based on the Star Organisational Model. We subsequently apply the Star Organisational Model and assess its suitability for describing institutional arrangements in six developing countries in relation to reporting their progress in implementing UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement commitments. In Section 2 we detail the reports within which Member States are expected to include descriptions of institutional arrangements, followed by UNFCCC-CGE’s recommended components. The final part of section 2 outlines the components of the Star Organisational Model for describing institutional arrangements. Section 3 outlines the methodology used for applying the approach. Section 4 summarise the results, Section 5 presents a discussion of its added value, followed by a conclusion in Section 6.

The UNFCCC-CGE guidance for Non-Annex I countries has, over the years, produced a number of training materials, guidelines, and toolkits on establishing and maintaining sustainable institutional arrangements that function efficiently and continuously to clarify what to include when describing institutional arrangements. Yet, little academic consideration has been given to analysing what constitutes “institutional arrangements” for Parties, in the context of the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement. This study addresses this research gap.

The authors of this study consider that there is a need to have a clear framework that can easily define what constitutes institutional arrangements, has the ability to reveal and analyse complexities, and can also provide the basis for designing options for a just transition as a basis for establishing sustainable institutional arrangements where they do not exist.

Starting with strategy helps developing countries to acknowledge upfront the uncertainly around two possible visions, due to availability of funds, the implications of this uncertainty and the choices that will need to be made. In other words, will the institutional arrangements be based on the strategy for conditional funds or unconditional funds?

The prominence of the strategy component in the Star model, lends itself to highlighting the complexities and implications in establishing institutional arrangements, especially for developing countries, who normally outline their ambition in the form of two broad classes of climate actions in their NDCs, one to be achieved unconditionally (i.e. without external support) and one conditional to external support. A comparison on the use of the two broad approaches is discussed below.

The Star Model asserts that strategy comes first and guides decisions about the makeup of the other components and that all components are interlinked. In the context of this study, strategy equates to a Party’s ambition for implementing its UNFCCC and Paris Agreement commitments, as indicated in their periodically updated NDCs. Hence, the framing of the institutional arrangements starts with Strategy. According to the Star model, the ambition of the NDCs (strategy) is the vision that guides and influences the choices made when establishing the various components of structure, people, processes and rewards.

The Consultative Group of Experts (CGE) and UNFCCC have recommended five separate components for describing institutional arrangements for member states as: (i) organization mandates; (ii) expertise; (iii) data flows; (iv) systems and tools; and (v) stakeholder engagement to support measurement, verification and reporting (MRV), transparency of climate action and support. In this study, we consider that the process of describing institutional arrangements can be viewed as akin to describing the components of an organisation such as a government, ministry, or agency. Specifically, we suggest that the Star Organisational Model, which has five interconnected components–strategy, structure, processes, people, and rewards–has the appropriate characteristics to be a useful additional approach for detailing what constitutes institutional arrangements for Parties reporting to the UNFCCC. It emphasises the inter-connectivity of the Star components and the prominence of one component (i.e. Strategy) over the other four, while the (CGE) and UNFCCC components do not stress this inter-connectivity nor the prominence of one component above another.

The UNFCCC-CGE guidance to Non-Annex I countries [ 2 ] sets out the benefits of institutional arrangements as supporting decision-making, and for enhanced and efficient reporting. Having these institutional arrangements in place demonstrates national ownership at all levels, a willingness and determination to plan and implement UNFCCC and Paris Agreement commitments.

Broadly speaking, institutional arrangements are the “policies, practices and systems that allow for effective functioning of an organization or group” [ 1 ]. They provide the mechanism by which work gets visioned, planned, coordinated, implemented, monitored and reported upon, while the states that “there is no single definition for institutional arrangements for adaptation and the term is used in many different forms and contexts”. This study adopts the UNDP (2009) definition as consistent and concise [ 1 ]. Nonetheless, the authors of this study consider that it is important to clearly define what constitutes institutional arrangements both from the perspective of reporting of what is in place and what is optimal to establish for a just transition to achieve UNFCCC and Paris Agreement commitments.

The level of detail in the information and data that is expected to be submitted to the Conference of Parties (CoP) to the UNFCCC is continuously increasing. Demonstrating commitment and progress in implementing the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement requires continuous high-level decision making, strategic coordination, the implementation of mitigation and adaptation programs, and a measuring and reporting system that spans across sectors and external bodies. Establishing institutional arrangements to make all this happen takes time, finance, capacity, technology, political and technical commitment. Establishing sustainable institutional arrangements can be challenging for UNFCCC and Paris Agreement Parties, and especially for developing countries who may lack the capacity and finance required to make such arrangements permanent (i.e. not just established for the preparation of UNFCCC reports).

Member States, (henceforth called Parties), both the Annex 1 and Non–Annex 1 countries, are expected to put in place effective institutional arrangements for the implementation of the United Nations Framework Convention for Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Paris Agreement. The UNFCCC Annex I countries are predominantly countries classified as industrialised in 1992, while the Annex 2 countries were classified as mostly developing countries and least developed countries. Both Annex 1 and Non–Annex 1 countries are required to describe in their National Communication report (NC), the institutional arrangements that they have established (UNFCCC Decisions 17/CP.8 and 18/CP.8 Annex 1). Likewise, Non-Annex I countries are expected to describe their institutional arrangements in their Biennial Update Reports, (BURs) 5 and Annex 1 countries in their Biennial Reports, (BRs) (UNFCCC Decision 2/CP.17, Annex III p,39 and Annex 1, p31). Since 2024, all Parties are required to describe these in the enhanced Biennial Transparency Report (BTR), with some flexibility provided to developing countries (UNFCCC Decision 18/CMA.1).

This study analyses whether the key processes for these three functions have been adopted for the relevant NI, MA, NAMAs, V&AA, and NAPs in relation to NC and BUR preparation and if there is any linkage with strategy and the other components.

Countries are expected to describe the processes adopted for the three key functions of planning, measuring, and reporting, for specific chapters of the NC, and BUR ( Table 1 ), as part of institutional arrangements.

UNFCCC emphasises that an effective reporting system lies at the core of governing mitigation efforts. Variations have been observed in the adherence to mandatory reporting requirements since 2014 [ 22 ]. There is an expectation that countries will put in place an open and transparent reporting system where results are not only shared with Conference of Parties (COP) but with the public, to facilitate discussion and for holding governments accountable. This will require countries to put in place an archiving system.

UNFCCC places a great emphasis on the need for a measurement, reporting and verification (MRV) system, together with knowledgeable staff, technology, and resources, and have provided extensive guidance to countries. There are many frameworks for building such systems; some have more steps than others [ 17 ]. However, there are many recognised challenges in establishing effective MRV systems, including capacity, culture and limited finance [ 18 – 20 ]. For example, building an MRV system for monitoring continuous emissions entails significant costs, and is, therefore, a challenge for many developing countries [ 21 ].

Planning is an important process, given the many stakeholders (both State and non-State) who are expected to engage in writing the NC and BURs. Planning provides the means for stakeholders to agree on what to do, who will do it and when it will be done. This planning process has been defined as a ‘deliberative, disciplined effort to produce fundamental decisions and actions that shape and guide what an organisation is, what it does, and why’ (Bryson 2011, 7–9; reviewed [ 14 ]). In principle, planning links strategic management with implementation and performance, on an ongoing basis [ 14 – 16 ].

With regard to institutional arrangements for UNFCCC and Paris Agreement reporting, our study identified three critical functions for the preparation and writing of NC, BURs and NIR: (1) planning, (2) measuring, including verification and (3) reporting. Each of these functions require processes to facilitate consistency across countries, and to ensure greater coordination amongst stakeholders engaged in different processes. Reports from countries are expected to describe what processes they have followed, thus an important part of institutional arrangements. The UNFCCC have prepared extensive guidelines for these processes to Non-Annex I countries.

Processes help ensure efficiency, consistency, and effectiveness in achieving objectives and can include procedures, workflows, protocols or how decisions are made and tasks allocated. A process can be defined as “a set of logically related tasks to achieve a defined business outcome” [ 13 ]. According to Galbraith (2014), some processes can be organisation-wide, and some are within a function, or link together multiple functions. Processes serve as the mechanisms for harmonising or coordinating interdependent functions within a business [ 5 ].

The purpose of the organisation’s reward system is motivation [ 5 ]. In order to accomplish the organisation’s goals, leaders must motivate individuals to behave in ways that will lead to a successful execution of a strategy. Organisations have created several tools to motivate and incentivise their members, including compensation, promotions, recognition systems, and others. In this study, rewards are analysed to understand linkage with strategy, other components and if those involved in writing the NC, BURs and NIR reports are provided with incentives.

The people dimension of organisational design is about choosing the personal with the skill sets and mind-sets that align with a company’s strategy [ 5 ]. Tools that organisations use for changing skill sets and mind-sets include recruitment, selection, development, rotations, and promotions. In this study, the people component is analysed to determine its linkage with strategy, other components and whether the preparing and writing of reports (NC, BUR and NIR) have been assigned to government staff, project staff or consultants.

The structure of an organisation refers to the formal way in which people and work are grouped together into defined units [ 10 ], and sets out the reporting relationships, power distribution, and reporting communication channels across a hierarchy. Structure also sets out the division of labour which is the degree of specialisation of the roles that are involved in executing work [ 11 ]. The literature on structure was first reviewed by Mintzberg who asserted the principle that all organisations have hierarchical forms of structure [ 12 ], although horizontal structures are growing in importance in recent years, presenting a dynamic landscape for understanding institutional arrangements. The shape of the organisation is determined by a number of levels and the spans of supervision [ 5 ]. Other dimensions of structure in the public sector relate to centralisation, formalisation, so-called ‘red tape’ and complexity [ 9 ]. This study analyses structure to understand its linkage to strategy (i.e. NDC), and the other Star components. We also analyse the type of structures established, for preparing and writing the NC, BUR and NIR reports.

This study analyse how countries developed their NDC strategy and whether it guided the makeup of the other four components of institutional arrangements for preparing and writing the NC, BUR and NIR reports. We also analyse if components reinforce each other (interlinked) as stated in the Star model.

The strategy for improving a country’s MRV system to enhance reporting requirements for the BTR would also be considered to be part of the overall NDC strategy. The NDC strategy and its components of structure, processes, people and rewards, together constitute the institutional arrangements for the NDC commitments. Similarly, the MRV strategy and its components of, structure, processes, people and rewards together constitute the institutional arrangements for an MRV system. However, the linkage of the MRV to the overall NDC strategy must be described (see below). Later we examine whether the six countries have prepared their NDC strategies and whether there is evidence that NDCs have influenced other components (and thus institutional arrangements).

In the context of this study, strategy equates to a Party’s ambition for implementing its UNFCCC and Paris Agreement commitments, which are defined in periodically updated NDCs. According to the Star model, the ambition of the NDCs (i.e. Strategy) is the vision that guides and influences the choices made when establishing the various components of structure, people, processes and rewards, and hence a core component of the institutional arrangements linking other components. Furthermore, developing countries, normally outline their ambition in their NDCs in the form of two greenhouse gas targets, one to be achieved unconditionally (i.e. without external support) and one conditional to external support. Hence there is complexity in designing a just transition pathway when establishing institutional arrangements.

Strategy is the direction in which an organisation wants to grow. Strategy shapes the choice of organisational design and affects the other components of structure, processes, people and rewards [ 5 ]. The Star model emphasises (as stated above) that the strategy component guides the makeup of other components.

The Star model asserts that strategy comes first and guides decisions about other components, and that all components are interlinked. In the context of our study, strategy equates to a member state’s UNFCCC and Paris Agreement commitments as defined in their NDCs. The framing of the institutional arrangements therefore starts with Strategy, which in this case relates to the NDCs.

The authors of the Star model [ 5 ], maintain that it is necessary to consider organisations as a complex social system. They noted organisations cannot be changed in piecemeal manner and whatever components need to be changed have to undergo change in a manner that reinforces each other. The authors consider that an effective organisation is one where all components are aligned, they fit together and reinforce one another (i.e. are interlinked). The authors also reveal that the reason they chose these five components (strategy, structure, processes, people and rewards) is because these components are directly controllable by leadership teams and are the components that have an impact on people’s behaviour.

This study proposes the Star Organisational Model, with its five interlinked components of strategy, structure, processes, people and rewards as a useful additional approach for describing what constitutes institutional arrangements ( Fig 1B ). When the term ‘institutional arrangements’ is mentioned in reference to the Star model, it will equate to meaning all five components, unless otherwise specified.

Such models emphasise the need for interlinkages between components and are built on "contingency theory”, the notion that organisations are most effective when their design characteristics complement their environment [ 8 ]. According to [ 6 , 9 ], contingent factors include age, size, technical system, environment and power.

Numerous models have been developed to describe the components of an organisation and are used both in the private and public sectors. Examples include:

The concept of ‘Modern organisational design’ emerged in the 1950s and 1960s in the United States with the work of Chandler in his 1962 book, Strategy and Structure but since then the topic has expanded structure to include several other factors such as information and decision processes, rewards systems and people [ 5 ]. Mintzberg described organisations in terms of five basic parts, reflecting a focus on the hierarchal nature of the structure, power of authority, staff, skills and division of labour [ 6 ]. Organisations, according to Galbraith (2014) are established to accomplish specific goals and objectives which, in turn, guide decisions about organisational structure, rewards, processes and people practices [ 5 ].

Possible alignment between the Star model and the UNFCCC-CGE 2020 five components is as follows: “organisational mandates” aligns with “structure”, “expertise” with “people”, “data flows, systems and tools” with “processes” and “stakeholder engagement” with both “structure and “processes”. The component of strategy is not included in the UNFCCC-CGE components, while the Star model defines strategy as the key component framing the shape of all other components. Neither are rewards explicitly included in the UNFCCC-CGE components, although ‘incentives’ are mentioned under the stakeholder engagement component. Specific alignments across each component are detailed in the following sections.

The UNFCCC-CGE handbook points out that institutional arrangements will vary among countries and there is no ‘one-size-fits–all’ model. It states that in some countries a single organisational structure may be responsible for all aspects, objectives, and outputs, whereas in other countries these responsibilities may be divided among different independent organisations. Hence, these arrangements will be applicable to countries with very different sizes, stages of economic development, degrees of centralization and federal arrangements.

Under the component “Stakeholder engagement”, countries are encouraged to include information on those stakeholders involved in data collection and those making use of its output, as well as those involved in implementation of action, policy-making and business decision-making. Countries are also expected to describe whether incentives were offered for stakeholders’ involvement (p15), Fig 1A .

Under the component “Expertise”, countries are expected to describe their national team of experts for regular data gathering and processing as well as their human resources system. Under the component “Data flows”, countries are expected to describe reliable, and regular flows of data and the management of data sets, as they build their transparency frameworks (p14). The “Systems and tools component” expects countries to describe how they are managing the collection and analysis of data, its quality assurance and control, as well as the summarizing and archiving of data. States are reminded that “institutional arrangements need to provide for the development and maintenance of workplans, engagement tools, databases, data analysis, indicators and reports.” (p14).

Under the first component “Organisational mandates”, the Handbook states that Member States should include “terms of reference designed to guarantee that the human, financial and data resources needed are made available, and to clarify the decision-making process”. Parties are also expected to describe the legal frameworks established, such as climate laws, organisational agreements and contracts, as they formalize the new roles and responsibilities, resources and relationships needed (p13, p28). The Handbook, in providing exemplar case studies, recommends describing the structure of the institutional arrangements with an organisation chart, to better summarise organisational linkages, and to define roles and responsibilities of the organisations involved.

The five separate components are: organisational mandates, expertise, data flows, systems and tools, and stakeholder engagement, together with its sub- components, as shown in Fig 1A .

The Modalities, Procedures and Guidelines (MPGs), 18/CMA1 and 5/CMA3 for the BTR report requires Parties to submit institutional arrangements for chapter II on national inventory (NI), chapter III on tracking progress made in implementing and archiving NDC, chapter IV on climate change impacts and adaption, including loss and damage, chapter V, on finance, technology (developed countries), and chapter VI in relation to finance, technology and capacity building (developing countries), i.e. paragraphs 18, 19, 61, 62, 106, 115, 119, 120, and 130. This summary reflects the intricate nature of institutional arrangements and underscores their significance, which in turn necessitates corresponding demands on reporting from the Parties.

The National Determined Contribution report (NDC), chapter I, requests Parties to report on “domestic institutional arrangements, public participation and engagement with local communities and indigenous peoples, in a gender-responsive manner” for the NDC planning process (UNFCCC Decision 4/CMA.1, Annex I, para 4a). Parties also need to include institutional arrangements and legal frameworks in relation to Article 7, paragraphs 10 and 11, of the Paris Agreement (UNFCCC 1Decision 9/CMA.1, Annex (a).

Parties are asked to provide, in their BUR chapter II, information on institutional arrangements “relevant to the preparation of the national communications on a continuous basis”. The UNFCCC-CGE, in their BUR training material [ 4 ], state that Parties could include institutional challenges relating to the coordination of technical support, climate change finance, and capacity-building support.

Many aspects of reporting to the UNFCCC and Paris Agreement require a focus on outlining institutional arrangements. The NC, chapter II, requires that Non-Annex I countries provide a description of institutional arrangements, in the preparation of their national communication on a continuous basis. Non-Annex 1 countries are again asked in chapter III to outline the role of institutions involved in the National Greenhouse Gas Inventory (NI), and chapter IV, they must describe institutional arrangements for programmes containing measures to mitigate climate change. Parties may indicate the general approach adopted to establish the institutions, entities, arrangements and systems involved in the domestic measurement, reporting and verification of Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs) 9 , chapter C (UNFCCC Decision 21/CP.19, Annex: ch C, para 4a). The Measurement, Reporting and Verification (MRV) handbook [ 3 ] recommends that Parties may describe the institutions responsible for adaptation, mitigation and the greenhouse gas (GHG) inventory actions in their NCs.

The results of the interviews together with information from the NCs, NIs, BURs and NDCs, were compiled and analysed to determine the institutional arrangements used for preparing their National Communication (NC), National Inventory (NI) and Biennial update reports (BURs) in each of the six countries.

Data for this part of our study includes both primary and secondary sources. A questionnaire ( S1 Data ) was used to collect data. Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) were conducted live in five countries with government staff directly involved in preparing the NC, NIs and BURs. Nigeria was also included in the analysis using data from their comprehensive NCs, NI, and BURs. The secondary data sources included country reports submitted to the UNFCCC ( Table 2 ).

The five components of the organisational Star Model (strategy, structure, people, rewards and processes) to understand the institutional arrangements that six countries have established to prepare their NC, BUR and NIR reports. The six countries comprised Bangladesh, Botswana, Ghana, Jamacia, Namibia, and Nigeria, chosen to ensure diversity and to include Least Developed Countries and a Small Island Developing State (SIDS). For the purpose of this study, the countries taking part in the study are called countries and not Parties to distinguish the difference. The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), through their in-country offices in the surveyed countries, kindly facilitated introductions to their local national government counterparts responsible for UNFCCC reporting obligations and were asked if they were willing to participate in the online interview research process, to try to identify additional “institutional arrangements” for countries reporting for UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement. All interview participants were informed that their responses would be anonymised. All survey and interview participants provided their consent in writing. The interviews were conducted in July 2022.

4. Results

Utilizing the Star Organisational Model, our analysis focused on the five key organisational elements: strategy; structure; people; rewards; and processes.

4.1 Strategy The strategy, in this context, is simply defined by each country’s UNFCCC and Paris Agreement commitments. These commitments are country specific and are set out as short-term strategies and plans in the form of NDCs. All six countries in this study have prepared NDC strategies (four updated their NDCs in 2021, Jamaica in 2020 and Botswana in 2016, perhaps reflecting why some data is missing for Botswana), Table 3. Some of the NDCs can be considered more ambitious than others, see Table 3). PPT PowerPoint slide

PNG larger image

TIFF original image Download: Table 3. Countries’ commitments in NDCs for reducing their GHG emissions by 2030. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000327.t003 Notably, five of the six countries have set out in their NDCs their 2030 GHG reduction targets,. All five of these have bifurcated these into targets that can be implemented unconditionally (with their own resources), and targets that are conditioned on external support, see Table 3. This uncertainty of external support creates challenges for countries when establishing or expanding institutional arrangements, i.e. strategy, structure, people, processes and rewards. Countries will need to decide if they will establish or enhance existing institutional arrangements based on conditional or unconditional GHG targets as set out in their NDCs. This can be challenging as the availability of conditional funds is uncertain and may take years to be clarified. Moreover, the NDC strategy cannot be addressed in isolation from other national development strategies with their corresponding institutional arrangements. Parties are requested to submit information on national circumstances and institutional arrangements, highlighting this close linkage with other strategies. To change existing institutional arrangements, or establish new ones, countries require changes to existing laws, or new laws and regulations, which need to take account of existing regulations framed under other strategies and policies. It takes time and resources to establish permanent institutional arrangements which likely explains, at least in part, why some countries have adopted temporary measures. Furthermore, the increasing climate ambition as expected in the periodically updated in NDCs is envisaged to include the ambition for a MRV system as part of each NDC, which will have its own institutional arrangements to facilitate all the reporting requirements related to the UNFCCC and Paris Agreement. Given that the strategy component influences the makeup of the other four components of structure, people, rewards and processes it follows that the establishment of institutional arrangements cannot start with the structure or another component. The strategy for improving the institutional arrangements to strengthen a country’s MRV system (to enhance reporting requirements for the BTR) is not as distinctly defined in the NDC as 2030 GHG reduction targets. Some countries explain their MRV strategy in general terms in their NDCs (Nigeria, Namibia, Bangladesh and Ghana) while others have not (Botswana and Jamaica). This generality is a challenge, as the strategy influences the shape of the other components of structure, people and rewards, related to institutional arrangements for a MRV system.

4.2 Structure The structure established to coordinate the UNFCCC and Paris Agreement agendas typically includes a coordinating ministry, a high-level coordinating committee, one or more working groups and an UNFCCC focal person. All countries except Jamaica have this structure, see Table 4. PPT PowerPoint slide

PNG larger image

TIFF original image Download: Table 4. Variations in structures established for coordinating the UNFCCC and Paris agreement agendas and the preparation of the NC and BURs. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000327.t004 From a hierarchical structure perspective, typically, the Permanent Secretary, (PS) is the highest level, below the Minister, in the structure of a Ministry. The Deputy PS is the second level, Director of a Department the third level, Deputy Director of a Division the fourth level and Head of a Unit the fifth. The title of the posts, and the tier names at each level may vary across countries, but a similar hierarchical structure is common (Fig 2). PPT PowerPoint slide

PNG larger image

TIFF original image Download: Fig 2. Typical hierarchical levels in the structure of a government ministry. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000327.g002 Two of the countries analysed (Bangladesh and Ghana) have a ministerial structure for policy and another wing for operationalising the policy. The policy structure is similar to the typical form outlined above, while the operational wing is slightly different. Both structures, however, still report to the Minister through an equivalent of the Permanent Secretary. Nigeria established a high-level structure for coordinating the UNFCCC agenda by establishing a Department of Climate Change, within the Federal Ministry of Environment, with four Divisions: Greenhouse Gas; Vulnerability and Adaptation; Education, Awareness and Outreach; and Mitigation. Bangladesh established a Climate Change Wing within the Department of Environment, housed in the operational arm of the Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change and with three Units (Climate Change, Trust Fund and Mitigation/GHGs). Jamaica established a Division within its Ministry of Economic Growth and Job Creation. Botswana established a Climate Change Unit (CCU) within the Training and Research Division of the Department of Meteorological Service of the Ministry of Environment, Natural Resources Conservation and Tourism. Namibia similarly established a CCU, in this case within the Multi Environment Agreements Division of the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) of the Ministry of Environment, Forestry and Tourism. Ghana established a CCU within its Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which in this case is an operational wing of the Ministry of Environment, Science, Technology and Innovation, see Table 4. All countries are obliged to nominate a focal person (FP) to enhance their communications with the Convention secretariat. In all cases, this person is located within the coordinating ministry. Regarding the structure for NC and BUR preparation, four of the six countries (Jamaica, Ghana, Namibia, Nigeria) included diagram(s) in their reports of the structure adopted for preparing their NCs and BURs. However, most do not include in the diagrams the tiers within the structure. Five of the six countries have a high-level coordinating UNFCCC body in place (Table 4). The Global Environment Facility (GEF) provides funds to Non-Annex I countries to prepare their NCs and BURs. Using these funds, some countries establish a Project Management Unit (PMU) of the UNFCCC coordinating ministry, usually at a level equivalent to a Division, or Unit (Table 4). This project structure was found to have been adopted by Bangladesh, Jamaica, Ghana and Namibia, but was typically considered as a temporary structure, since when the project is completed, the structure will end as staff contracts cease. Nigeria has moved towards a more permanent structure with four Divisions responsible for coordinating the UNFCCC—Paris Agreement agendas, while the preparation of the NCs and BURs is done by CCU in Botswana. To enhance coordination beyond the ministry with official responsibility for coordination, and to encourage ownership by sector ministries and other stakeholders for the preparation of the NC and BURs, working groups (WGs) were established by all countries (except Jamaica). Some WGs reflect the key focus of the chapters of the NC such as NI, mitigation and adaptation. While some also reflect the four NI sectors (Energy, Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU), Industrial Processes and Product Use (IPPU), and Waste), others show combinations of these, and/or sub-working groups (Table 4). These working groups are typically chaired by the relevant sectoral ministry and also include representatives of the private sector, research institutions, universities, NGOs, and CSOs. Some countries (Ghana, Namibia, Nigeria) are investing in WGs to ensure they are “permanent” in the structure or work on a continuous basis and not just composed for NC and BUR preparation. WGs in Ghana have Terms of Reference (TORs) and both Ghana and Nigeria officially assigned roles to institutions, making them a permanent part of the structure. WGs in other countries tend to be “revitalised” when NCs and BURs are prepared, emphasizing the challenge in establishing more permanent structures. Structural variations between countries are shown in Table 4. The results indicate that the countries with the highest ambition (those who updated their NDCs in 2021), have the greatest number of levels in the structure and the most working groups, (Nigeria, Ghana, Namibia, Bangladesh), indicating the influence of strategy and the priority given to the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement in these countries. Nigeria has established a Department of Climate Change, with four Divisions suggesting it is establishing institutional arrangements not only for gathering data and writing NC and BURs progress reports, but also for the coordination and implementation of programs to achieve its overall NDC targets. However, the existence of temporary structures such as Project Management Units (PMUs) in Bangladesh, Ghana, Namibia and Jamaica and temporary Working Groups (WGs) in Botswana, Jamaica, Bangladesh, Namibia highlights the challenges countries are experiencing in putting in place permanent sustainable structures for gathering data and writing NCs and BURs. This raises the concern that if countries are experiencing challenges putting in place institutional arrangements for a MRV system, they are likely also experiencing challenges putting in place institutional arrangements for programmes containing measures to mitigate and adapt to climate change to meet their country’s UNFCCC and Paris Agreement ambition. Our analysis does not distinguish if the structures established for the preparation of NCs and BURs are aligned to the conditional or unconditional NCDs—for this a more in-depth study would be required. This may partly explain why five of the countries have established parts of their structures as temporary, given the uncertainty surrounding the external support for their conditional proposed 2030 GHG emission targets. The availability of GEF funds to support writing of the NC and BURs, and the temporary nature of some of the structures established for NC and BUR reporting, could suggest that in some countries funding may have limited the types of structures that were envisaged in the strategy to be put in place. The availability of GEF funds for writing NC and BURs tends to encourage a “project type” temporary type institutional arrangements. In addition, the absence of a clear MRV strategy and implementation plan could curtail countries defining the most appropriate structure, processes, people and rewards required to have effective MRV institutional arrangements in place.

4.3 People Understanding the “people” component is also an important aspect within the context of institutional arrangements. It is important to know what type of personnel (i.e existing government staff, new recruits, or consultants) have been assigned to preparing and writing the NC, BUR and NIR reports and whether there is a link to strategy and other components. In general, countries do not elaborate in their BURs and NC reports on the number of staff assigned to the structure for coordinating the UNFCCC agenda, including for preparing the NC and BUR. The number of staff dedicated to writing the NC and BURs may be as few as four in Namibia with Nigeria indicating the most at 113. Some countries using the Global Environment Facility (GEF) funding recruit a Project Coordinator (PMC) to facilitate the coordination of the NC and BUR preparation. These PMCs are typically assigned to a Project Management Unit, (see structure above) and tend to be project focused, with contracts and roles ending when project funds expire, as was found for Bangladesh, Jamaica, Namibia, and Ghana. Extensive and relevant technical expertise and commitment is required to effectively write the NC, NIR and BUR. Countries with limited relevant expertise in their coordinating agency, or where the WG members are not permanent in the MRV structure, or lack the required expertise, usually recruit national or international consultants to write most of their reports. This was found to be the case for Bangladesh, Botswana, Jamaica, and Namibia. In these circumstances, WG members mainly provide data for the consultants to analyse. The consultants are usually managed by either the Division Head or the PMC. However, Namibia is striving to reduce its reliance on outsourcing. Nigeria specifically asks any consultant recruited to train its staff, as part of its consultancy, to increase the skills of more permanent staff. WG members in Ghana and Nigeria, who are permanent in the MRV structure, are encouraged to take on the responsibilities for the continuous quality assurance and quality control on progress activity data, and to upload to the MRV system of their country. In addition, they assist in drafting chapters, and in compiling and generating emission data. In both cases, the aim is to establish in-house report writing. The NC, including the NI report, typically takes approximately 24 to 30 months to complete, while the BUR takes approximately 12 months. However, some countries write both simultaneously. The more these reports are outsourced to consultants, the more their experience and “institutionalised memory” is at risk of being lost to the ministries, although arguably, not to the country. This outsourcing may also take the focus off the upskilling of the staff assigned to these functions. Our analysis suggest that the staff recruited was influenced by strategy, in this case the MRV strategy (institutional arrangements established to write the NCs and BURs). The analysis also indicates that there is a link between the trend for temporary structures and the trend for temporary staff in the form of Project Coordinator (PMC) and consultants. This makes sense as organisations tend to invest in permanent staff once there is clarity around strategy and permanent structures. The availability of the GEF funds to write the NC and BURs and the temporary nature of staff (Project Coordinators and consultants), temporary structures, could suggest that the availability of GEF funds in these countries may have influenced the choices of the type of expertise (people) recruited to write the reports. Given that Nigeria recruited 103 staff for its new structure, this could suggest that it is establishing institutional arrangements not only for its MRV system but also for the coordination and implementation of programs to achieve its NCD targets. As part of a just transition to establishing sustainable institutional arrangements, It is important for countries to indicate (in their people component of institutional arrangements) whether consultants, project staff or permanent staff are recruited with the required expertise or are expected to acquire it while on the job, so that appropriate support (whether financial and technical) can be provided, while possibly gaining leniency in adherence to the MRV processes.

4.4 Rewards The “rewards component” is an important component of institutional arrangements to enhance the motivation of staff and, in this case, for preparing NCs and BURs. The types of incentives for staff currently in place in countries are part of the packages offered to all government employees across ministries. These typically include travel costs to sites to monitor progress of activities, and overnight subsistence allowances, amongst others. Our findings indicate that those countries which have a PMU (structure) tend to have short-term staff with contracts (expiring when project funds end) (people) who are generally paid higher rates (rewards) than government employees. This creates the risk that government staff, if not provided with an incentive, will allocate work to the PMU whose staff are employed specifically to focus on the NC, NIR and BURs preparation. This occurrence could cause inter-staff discontent. Ghana provides one example of a positive non-financial incentive in which the preparation of NCs and BURs is integrated into ministries’ annual work plans, to become part of the staffs’ annual performance–and reward may also include being promoted within the organisation. Nigeria established four divisions (structure), specifically focusing on implementing their NDC strategy, including MRV, under which staff (people) were recruited directly such that their work is part of their job description. This approach eliminates comparisons with PMU staff and expectations around salary (rewards). Again, the availability of the GEF funds to write the NC and BURs suggests there is a link between the trend for temporary structures, temporary staff in the form of Project Coordinator (PMC) and consultants, along with temporary fees (rewards) paid to consultants and PMCs. Here, the Star model proves useful in pinpointing the challenges that countries face with their institutional arrangements for writing their BUR and NC, particularly with the availability of GEF funds and how it may have influenced the shape of the structures, people and rewards as envisaged in the strategy. It helps to highlight the critical need for long-term, sustained, and predictable funding being made available to developing countries to implement their NDC strategy.

4.5 Processes Our study determined whether key process actions recommended by UNFCCC-CGE were followed for the functions of planning, measuring including verification, and reporting including archiving, with respect to NC, NIR and BUR and if there is any linkage with strategy and the other Star model components. Our findings from the six countries studied are outlined in Table 5. The first column of the table shows the key recommended processes that are common to the NC, NI and BUR, while the body of the table shows the number of countries that have adopted the processes. PPT PowerPoint slide

PNG larger image

TIFF original image Download: Table 5. Countries who have adopted recommended processes for the preparation of the NC, BUR, and NIR. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000327.t005 Our work indicates that all countries are following at least some of the recommended processes, see Table 5 for a list of processes for NC, NIR and BURs reports. (Note that any assessment of the “level of quality” of the processes adopted is outside of our scope). Specifically, Bangladesh, Botswana, Jamaica, and Namibia adopted the plan in the project document used to secure GEF funding, for preparing the NC/BUR without preparing specific preparation plans for the chapters of the NC and BURs. Some countries are challenged to establish an MRV system for data gathering and analysis that is central to the data-related processes, and all the countries are at different stages in establishing their MRV systems. Ghana started to establish its MRV system in 2013 and continues to improve its institutional arrangements. For example, its WGs are encouraged to be permanent (structure), and to enter data on a continuing basis (people and processes). The analysis of the process component suggests that, despite countries adopting different types (temporary or permanent) of MRV institutional arrangements (strategies, structures, people, and rewards), they still managed to follow many of the recommended processes for preparing and writing the NI, NC and BUR reports. This reflects both the emphasis and the extensive financial and technical support provided by UNFCCC-CGE over the years to developing countries to strengthen processes, especially for preparing and writing their NCs, NIRs and BURs. The technical support provided for processes to countries is grounded within a global MRV vision (strategy) envisaged for MRV for UNFCCC and Paris Agreement reporting at national level. The processes adopted in the six countries were guided by national MRV strategies. The analysis of this component further underscores the principle of the strategy component guiding the makeup of the other components, and the importance of interlinkage between components. In other words, MRV strategy guided the focus of the processes. Furthermore, the analysis shows that if any one component was missing, the NC, NI and BURs reports could not have been written, Hence, components reinforce each other. While the NC and BURs reports were written, the quality of the reports were not assessed, as this is beyond the scope of this study, i.e. to ascertain whether the type institutional arrangements (permanent / temporary) affected the quality of the report. Nonetheless, sustainable institutional arrangements that function efficiently and continuously are encouraged by the UNFCC-CGE. While it was possible to write the NC and BURs reports using temporary arrangements, this would not seem feasible for the implementation of the long-term programs required to meet NDC targets. We consider that the strength of the Star model is in highlighting the importance of strategy in guiding the makeup of the other components and the emphasis placed on the interlinkage between components. Our findings indicate how strategy (MRV/ NIs, NCs and BURs), guided the type of structure, people, rewards and processes adopted, and clearly showed the interdependence of each component (i.e. without the support of each other, the reports could not be easily written). Furthermore, the Star model proves useful for pinpointing the challenges that countries face with their institutional arrangements for writing their BUR and NC, particularly where the temporary availability of external GEF funds might influence the extent to which the strategy, structures, people, rewards and processes could be established. Analysing the inter-linkages of components reveals that when all components (institutional arrangements) are in place (even if they are temporary), work can get done and be guided by strategy, but only if funds are available. In the context of this study, it would be important that countries decide upfront if they are establishing institutional arrangements for their NDC based on internal or/and with external predictable sustained funding. This in turn requires Annex I Parties to be more forthcoming with finance to relevant developing countries to facilitate a just transition to sustainable institutional arrangements. This study has shown that the Star model could assist countries to more clearly identify what constitutes institutional arrangements both from the perspective of reporting of what is in place and what is optimal to establish.

4.6 How do stakeholders integrate into within the “Star model”? Stakeholder engagement is recommended by the UNFCCC as a very important component of institutional arrangements for the preparation of NCs and BURs. Stakeholders, including state or non-state institutions or entities, can be viewed through the components of “structure” and “processes”. The ideal is to engage stakeholders in both. A stakeholder can be part of the NC/BUR preparation structure, provided they have been assigned to the structures established for preparing the NC/BUR, and have specific responsibilities for this as part of their mandate. All countries studied, except Jamaica, have established WGs which have included sectoral ministries and other non-State stakeholders who contribute their relevant NC and BUR expertise, as outlined in WGs above. However, not all stakeholders can be members of WGs, in which case they can potentially be “consulted”, to seek their views and inputs. This type of engagement is captured in the ‘processes’ component. Consultations are recorded to have taken place in most countries during the Vulnerability & Adaptation and Mitigation Assessments and/or in the process of collecting data for the GHG inventory.

[END]
---
[1] Url: https://journals.plos.org/climate/article?id=10.1371/journal.pclm.0000327

Published and (C) by PLOS One
Content appears here under this condition or license: Creative Commons - Attribution BY 4.0.

via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/plosone/