FAQ - Implementing the Enhanced Transparency Framework

Credit: UN Climate Change

Operationalization of the Enhanced Transparency Framework

Aiming to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change, Parties adopted the Paris Agreement (PA) in 2015, and through it established an enhanced transparency framework for action and support (ETF). The ETF is now fully operational, including with the submissions of the first biennial transparency reports (BTRs). Parties have started undergoing the next steps in the ETF: technical expert reviews (TERs) and facilitative multilateral consideration of progress (FMCP). As these efforts advance, Parties may have some questions on the implementation of the ETF, and how requirements, activities, and systems under the measurement, reporting, and verification (MRV) system under the Convention and the Kyoto Protocol connect to the ETF.

These frequently asked questions (FAQ) provide responses to some of the key questions and aim to enhance Parties’ and other stakeholders’ understanding of the ETF.

If you have a question regarding the implementation of the ETF which has not been addressed here, please send an email to etf@unfccc.int.

Disclaimer: The responses provided in the FAQ are not a substitute for the decisions agreed by Parties; please refer to the relevant decision text for further information. This is a living document and will be updated regularly.

Objectives

^{*Version 3, updated on 12 June 2025.}

1. Transitioning from Reporting of Biennial Reports (BRs) and Biennial Update Reports (BURs) to Biennial Transparency Reports (BTRs)

How do the modalities, procedures and guidelines (MPGs) for the ETF as contained in annex to decision 18/CMA.1 and the guidance for operationalizing the MPGs as contained in decision 5/CMA.3 supersede the current measurement, reporting and verification (MRV) requirements?

The MPGs will supersede the existing MRV requirements under the Convention (see decision 1/CP.24, para. 39) in that:

Reporting of the biennial report (BR)/biennial update report (BUR) under the Convention will be superseded by reporting of the biennial transparency report (BTR) for PA Parties.
Review of the BR and technical analysis (TA) of the BUR under the Convention will be superseded by technical expert review of BTRs for PA Parties.
Multilateral assessment (MA) and facilitative sharing of views (FSV) under the Convention will be superseded by the facilitative multilateral consideration of progress (FMCP) for PA Parties.
Developed country Parties will follow the MPGs for reporting their annual greenhouse gas (GHG) inventory instead of the reporting guidelines contained in annex I to decision 24/CP.19.

Parties to the Convention that are not Parties to the PA will continue the current reporting and review of annual GHG inventories under the Convention, and MRV processes as appropriate (see decision 1/CP.24, para. 44).

The following elements will continue to be reported under the Convention and are not superseded by the MPGs:

National Communications (NC) must continue to be submitted by developed and developing country Parties.
An annual GHG inventory must continue to be submitted by developed country Parties, which may follow the requirements of the MPGs instead of the reporting requirements in annex I to decision 24/CP.19. In the years in which a BTR is due, the GHG inventory can be submitted as a stand-alone report or as a section of the BTR (decision 18/CMA.1, annex, para. 12). If submitted as a stand-alone report, a summary of the Party’s GHG emissions/removals must be included in the BTR (decision 18/CMA.1, annex, para. 91).
The proposed REDD+ forest reference emission level and/or forest reference level by developing country Parties which may be submitted on a voluntary basis in accordance with decision 12/CP.17 (para. 13) and will be subject to a technical assessment per decision 13/CP.19.
The technical annex on REDD+ (to be reported in BURs per decision 14/CP.19 (para. 7) for those Parties seeking results-based payments) is to be reported as an annex to the BTR and is subject to a technical analysis carried out concurrently with the review of the BTR (paras. 45–46 of decision 1/CP.24).

When are the final¹ BRs and BURs due under the current MRV system?

The final BRs by developed countries were submitted as early as the due date for the annual GHG inventory in 2022 (15 April 2022), but no later than 31 December 2022 (decisions 1/CP.24, para. 38 and 6/CP.25, para.3). The final BRs included GHG inventory data for 2020 and thus allowed assessment of whether the Party met its 2020 economy-wide emission reduction target. The final BURs by developing countries were those that were submitted no later than 31 December 2024 (decision 1/CP.24, para. 38).

^{1 The concept of final BR/BUR is relevant for the Parties of the Convention that are also Parties to the Paris Agreement. The Parties of the Convention that are not Parties under the Paris Agreement will continue reporting BR/BURs as applicable.}

When was the first BTR due?

According to decision 18/CMA.1, para. 3, the first BTR must be submitted by all Parties no later than 31 December 2024. Least developed country Parties and small island developing States may submit their BTR at their discretion (decisions 1/CP.21, para 90 and 18/CMA.1, para.4).

2. Linkages between Communication of Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) under Article 4 and the Enhanced Transparency Framework (ETF)

**How is the submission of a Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) under Article 4 related to the ETF?**
An NDC under Article 4 is communicated by Parties every five years (Article 4.9 of the Paris Agreement) and is not subject to review under the ETF. The link between the NDC and the ETF relates to the need to provide a description by Parties of their NDC in their BTR against which, the progress made in implementing and achieving it will be tracked (decision 18/CMA.1, para. 64). The information on a Party’s NDC that is required to be provided in the BTR is similar, but not identical, to the information that is necessary for transparency, clarity and understanding in its NDC. Although the adequacy and appropriateness of the Party’s NDC, of the description of the NDC in the BTR and of the indicators chosen to track progress made in implementing and achieving the NDC are not subject to review under the ETF (decision 18/CMA.1, annex, para.149(b)), the information necessary to track progress made in implementing and achieving the NDC reported by a Party, including the description of its NDC, and information provided for each selected indicator used for tracking progress is subject to review in accordance with the MPGs (decision 18/CMA.1, annex, para. 150(b)). The progress a Party has made in implementing and/or achieving its NDC is summarized in the “structured summary” reported in the BTR and reviewed by a technical expert review team. For more information on NDCs, please visit https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/nationally-determined-contributions-ndcs

How do Parties track progress in the implementation and achievement of their NDC?

Each Party identifies the relevant indicator(s) it will use to track progress made in implementing and achieving its NDC (decision 18/CMA.1, annex, paras 65–78).

Indicators are self-selected by each country and may be qualitative or quantitative and thus may come in many formats, inter alia, net GHG emissions and removals, percentage reduction of GHG intensity, relevant qualitative indicators for a specific policy or measure, mitigation co-benefits of adaptation actions and/or economic diversification plans.

Parties with an NDC that consists of adaptation actions and/or economic diversification plans resulting in mitigation co-benefits must provide information to track progress on implementation and achievement of the domestic policies and measures implemented, including the sectors and activities associated with the response measures and the social and economic consequences of the response measures (decision 18/CMA.1, annex, para. 78).

Progress in the implementation and achievement of the NDC is tracked through submission of the BTR, including through a structured summary of information (decision 4/CMA.1, para. 17) and the review of that information (decision 18/CMA.1, para. 150(b)). Specifically, for each selected indicator(s), Parties shall compare the most recent information in the implementation period with the information for the reference point(s) to track progress and to assess whether it has achieved its NDC (decision 18/CMA.1, paras. 67–70).

Information is reported in the narrative of the BTR (see the question on the BTR outline above) as well as in common tabular formats, as applicable. For the common tabular formats, see Annex II to decision 5/CMA.3.

3. Linkages between Reporting of National Communications (NCs) and the Enhanced Transparency Framework (ETF)

**How are NCs reported?**
The MPGs do not replace the NC reporting guidelines for Annex I and non-Annex I Parties under the Convention. Accordingly, developed countries are required to submit an NC every four years (decision 2/CP.17, para. 14) and developing countries should submit an NC every four years (decision 1/CP.16, para. 60(b)). Once the MPGs are in effect, and taking the mandated timelines into account, Parties to the PA may either: Continue to report a separate NC every 4 years, following the guidelines in decision 17/CP.8 or 6/CP.25, as appropriate OR Submit a single BTR/NC report in the years an NC is submitted, following the guidance in the MPGs for BTRs for information also covered by the relevant reporting guidelines in decisions 6/CP.25 and 17/CP.8, as appropriate and including supplemental chapters on research and systematic observations (RSO) and education/training and public awareness following the guidelines in decisions 6/CP.25 and 17/CP.8, as appropriate (para. 43 of 1/CP.24). In addition, Parties that have not reported information on adaptation in section IV of the BTR must also include an additional chapter on adaptation, in accordance with the relevant guidelines in decisions 6/CP.25 and 17/CP.8, as appropriate (para. 43 of 1/CP.24).

**When will the first NC be submitted in conjunction with a BTR?**
For developed country Parties, NC9 is expected to be the first NC submitted with the MPGs in effect. In accordance with decision 2/CP.17 in conjunction with decision 6/CP.25, NC9 are to be submitted in 2026. According to decision 1/CP.16, para. 60(b), NC by developing countries are due every four years but without a clear starting date. This is why, for practical reasons and with a view to having a robust overview of trends, it might be helpful for developing countries to strive to submit their NC in conjunction with their BTRs, when applicable.

**How will the NC be reviewed?**
For Parties included in Annex I to the Convention that are also Party to the PA: Review is guided by decision 18/CMA.1 for information also covered by the NC reporting guidelines in decisions 6/CP.25, as well as the relevant guidelines in decision 13/CP.20 for the additional chapters on research and systematic observation (RSO), training and public awareness and adaptation (para. 43 of decision 1/CP.24). The guidelines noted here are relevant regardless of whether the Party submits the NC as a separate report or integrated with the BTR. For Parties that are not included in Annex I to the Convention and are also Party to the PA, the BTR only will be reviewed per decision 18/CMA.1. If the BTR/NC is submitted as a single report, the additional chapters in the NC (RSO, education/training/awareness, adaptation) will not be reviewed. If a separate NC is submitted, it will not undergo any review.

4. Reporting of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Inventories in the Enhanced Transparency Framework (ETF)

**Are all Parties required to submit a GHG inventory as a part of the Biennial Transparency Report (BTR)?**
Yes. In accordance with Article 13. 7(a) of the Paris Agreement, all Parties must submit a national inventory report (NIR) of anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of GHGs. The national inventory report consists of a national inventory document (NID) and the common reporting tables (CRT). The GHG inventory must be developed consistent with chapter II of the MPGs, including the use of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines and following the common reporting tables adopted by decision 5/CMA.3.

**Will developed country Parties continue to submit annual GHG Inventories?**
Yes. All Annex I Parties under the Convention must continue to submit GHG inventories annually in accordance with decision 3/CP.1, by 15 April each year. In years a BTR is due, the GHG inventory for developed country Parties may be submitted either as part of the BTR, or as a standalone document. The GHG inventory submission for Parties to the Paris Agreement must use the MPGs contained in chapter II of the annex to decision 18/CMA.1 (para. 42 of decision 1/CP.24).

Will the GHG inventory be submitted at the same time as the BTR?

Not necessarily. The GHG inventory may be submitted as a part of the BTR or submitted as a standalone document. These documents do not need to be submitted at the same time, as long as the respective deadlines are met.

For Annex I Parties under the Convention that are also Parties to the Paris Agreement, this means 15 April for the GHG inventory and no later than 31 December for the BTR in years in which the BTR is due.

For developing country Parties, this means the BTR and the GHG inventory, if a standalone document, must be submitted by 31 December in a year when a BTR is due.

Which guidelines are to be followed for preparing GHG inventories under the Paris Agreement?

When preparing their GHG inventories under the Paris Agreement, Parties are to follow the guidance outlined in the MPGs (annex to decision 18/CMA.1 and decision 5/CMA.3). The common reporting tables adopted for reporting GHG inventory data are contained in annex I to decision 5/CMA.3. The outline for reporting the NID is provided in annex V to decision 5/CMA.3. The outline may be used in cases when the GHG inventory is included as a chapter in the BTR, as well as when it is included as a standalone document. In both cases, its use is encouraged, but not required.

Some developing countries are currently using the IPCC software. Can Parties use the IPCC software to meet requirements under the Paris Agreement?

The IPCC software is a tool to help Parties in estimating GHG emissions in accordance with the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. The IPCC software is NOT a reporting tool, and there are differences in the reporting guidance provided in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines and the reporting obligations under PA. The secretariat worked closely with the IPCC to facilitate interoperability between the new ETF reporting tool and the IPCC software so that a Party can use the IPCC software to estimate GHG emissions and transfer results and relevant data, through the use of a JSON exchange format, to the ETF reporting tool to generate the CRTs for submission.

5. Submission of Biennial Transparency Reports (BTRs)

What was the deadline for the first BTRs?

According to decision 18/CMA. 1, para. 3, the first BTR and NIR, if submitted as a stand-alone report, must be submitted by all Parties no later than 31 December 2024. Subsequent BTRs are to be submitted every two years thereafter.

Is there a suggested outline for preparing the BTR?

In accordance with paragraph 2 to decision 5/CMA.3, Parties are encouraged, but not required, to follow the outline for the BTR contained in Annex IV of that decision. The BTR outline covers the elements in decision 18/CMA.1. In addition, the outline contains a chapter for information to be reported when an NC and BTR are submitted jointly, and addresses cases where a technical annex for REDD+ is reported or a Party reports information in relation to its participation in cooperative approaches.

What is the relationship between the BTR chapter on climate change impacts and adaptation and the Adaptation Communication?

Parties may submit their Adaptation Communication as a component of, or in conjunction with, a BTR (para. 4 of decision 9/CMA.1). If a Party chooses to do so, then it should clearly identify which part of the BTR comprises the Adaptation Communication (para. 13 of the annex to decision 18/CMA.1).

Parties may, when submitting an Adaptation Communication as a component of, or in conjunction with, other documents (such as the BTR), tailor the information provided, taking into account the “vehicle” document (i.e. the document in which the Adaptation Communication is included) (para. 9 of decision 9/CMA.1).

Are all countries required to report on financial, technology development and transfer and capacity building (FTC) support in their BTR?

Developed country Parties are required to report information on FTC support provided and mobilized to developing countries Parties under Articles 9, 10 and 11, in accordance with paras. 118–129 of the annex to decision 18/CMA.1, and the CTF tables contained in annex III to the decision 5/CMA.3 (Article 13.9 of the Paris Agreement).

Other Parties that provide support should report information on FTC support provided and mobilized to developing country Parties under Articles 9, 10 and 11. It is important to note that in accordance with para. 118 of the annex to 18/CMA.1, these Parties are encouraged, but not required, to use the MPGs when reporting this information (Article 13.9 of the Paris Agreement).

Developing country Parties should, but are not required to, report information contained in paras. 130–145 of the annex to decision 18/CMA.1 (Article 13.10 of the Paris Agreement).

It is beneficial for developing country Parties to report information on FTC needed and received in order to help facilitate implementation of their NDC under Article 4 of the Paris Agreement.
It is also noteworthy that the Paris Agreement specifically encourages these Parties to report on support needed and received for implementing Article 13 of the Paris Agreement (decision 18/CMA.1, annex, paras. 143–145).

6. Cross-Cutting Issues: Flexibility and Discretion

**What is meant by “flexibility for developing countries that need it in the light of their capacities” in the Paris Agreement?**
The Paris Agreement, and specifically the Enhanced Transparency Framework (ETF), refers to “flexibility” under specific circumstances, i.e. flexibility is available to those developing country Parties that need it in the light of their capacities. Flexibility is offered for specific provisions in the modalities, procedures and guidelines (MPGs) related to the scope, frequency and level of detail of reporting, and in the modalities of the review and of the facilitative multilateral consideration of progress (FMCP) and is to be self-determined by those developing country Parties who elect to apply it. Developing country Parties that have capacity constraints and apply a flexibility must indicate in their BTR that they have done so, explaining their capacity constraints and their intended timeframe for improvement related to the identified capacity constraint(s) (decision 18/CMA.1, annex, para. 6). The technical expert review team cannot review the Party’s determination to apply a flexibility provision, including the estimated time frame for improvement, nor can it assess whether the Party has the capacity to implement the provision without flexibility (decision 18/CMA.1, annex, para. 149(e)). In recognition of the fact that Parties have different starting points, the flexibility provisions allow developing country Parties that need them in light of their capacities a mean of adhering to the MPGs, while enabling them to highlight specific capacity-building needs, which will enable the Party to implement an improvement related to the identified capacity constraint.

**Which flexibilities are offered to those developing countries that need it in light of their capacities in reporting their Biennial Transparency Reports (BTRs)?**
Developing country Parties that need flexibility in light of their capacities may only apply flexibilities specifically identified in the MPGs (see table 1 below). For each flexibility provision applied, the Party is required to explain the related capacity constraint and to provide the anticipated timeframe for improvements related to that capacity constraint (decision 18/CMA.1, annex, para. 6).

How will a Party report it has used a flexibility provision for which it has a capacity constraint in its reporting?

IIn accordance with decision 5/CMA.3 (para. 5) Parties may choose one or more of the following options to indicate their use of a flexibility provision:

Use the notation key “FX” (flexibility) in the respective cell(s) of the relevant common reporting tables (GHG inventory) or common tabular formats (for tracking progress) and providing an explanation on how the flexibility has been applied in the corresponding documentation box;
Collapse relevant rows or columns where “FX” is used in each cell (describing this choice in the corresponding documentation box of the relevant table) - to be implemented;
Collapse tables where the Party has reported “FX” in each cell for the additional gases HFCs, PFCs, SF₆ or NF₃(in accordance with paragraph 48 of the MPGs) and providing an explanation on how the flexibility has been applied in the corresponding documentation box - to be implemented;
Generate data for only certain years of the time series, thus not generating columns or tables for years of the time series for which flexibility has been applied (in accordance with paragraphs 57–58 of the MPGs) (describing the Party’s choice in the corresponding documentation boxes); and/or
Report on the threshold selected for the key category analysis (in accordance with paragraph 25 of the MPGs) or for considering estimates insignificant (in accordance with paragraph 32 of the MPGs) and providing an explanation on how the flexibility has been applied in the corresponding documentation box.

What are the specific provisions for least developed countries (LDCs) and small island developing States (SIDS) under the ETF?

In recognition of their national circumstances, LDCs/ SIDS are offered discretion in the frequency of reporting under the ETF. LDCs and SIDS can choose to submit the BTR information at their discretion (i.e. it may be less frequently than biennial) (decision 1/CP.21, para. 90 and decision 18/CMA.1 para. 4).

No specific justification in the BTR for the Party’s use of this discretion is required as it would be for those developing country Parties that elect to apply a specific flexibility provision.

As with all developing country Parties that need flexibility it in light of their capacities, LDCs and SIDS have the opportunity to apply the flexibility provisions reflected in the annex to decision 18/CMA.1 and highlight their capacity building constraints.

Table 1. Summary of flexibility provisions in MPGs to those developing country parties that need it in light of their capacities

Area of flexibility	Reference in MPGs (Annex to decision 18/CMA.1)	Flexibility provisions for those developing country Parties that need flexibility in the light of their capacities
GHG inventory
Key category analysis Option to identify fewer key categories by using a lower threshold, and therefore use higher tier methodologies to estimate GHG emissions and or removals only for these categories.	para. 25	Flexibility to identify key categories using a threshold no lower than 85 per cent in place of the 95 per cent threshold defined in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines (i.e. key categories are those that, when summed together in descending order of magnitude, add up to 95 percent of the national sum of the absolute values of emissions and removals).
Uncertainty assessment Option to omit reporting quantitative uncertainty information, if data are not available.	para. 29	Flexibility to provide, at a minimum, a qualitative discussion of uncertainty for key categories, using the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, instead of quantitatively estimating and qualitatively discussing the uncertainty of the emissions and removal estimates for all categories, including inventory totals, for at least the starting year and the latest reporting year of the inventory time series and also estimating the trend uncertainty for these categories, including totals, between the starting year and the latest reporting year.
Completeness Option to omit reporting of insignificant emission estimates.	para. 32	Flexibility to consider emissions insignificant if the likely level of emissions is below 0.1 per cent of the national total GHG emissions, excluding LULUCF, or 1,000 kt CO₂ eq, whichever is lower. If flexibility is chosen, the total national aggregate of estimated emissions for all gases from categories considered insignificant, shall remain below 0.2 per cent of the national total GHG emissions, excluding LULUCF, as opposed to 0.1 per cent for other Parties.
QA/QC Option to neither develop a QA/QC plan nor provide information on the inventory agency responsible for implementing QA/QC and on general inventory QC procedures implemented.	para. 34	Developing country Parties that need flexibility in light of their capacities are encouraged to elaborate an inventory QA/QC plan in accordance with the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, including information on the inventory agency responsible for implementing QA/QC, instead of the mandatory requirement to elaborate the QA/QC plan in accordance with the 2006 IPCC Guidelines and to provide information on the inventory agency responsible for QA/QC.
	para. 35	Developing country Parties that need flexibility in light of their capacities are encouraged to implement and provide information on general inventory QC procedures in accordance with their QA/QC plan and the 2006 IPCC Guidelines; instead of the mandatory requirement to implement and provide this information.
Gases Option to report fewer GHGs.	para. 48	Flexibility to report at least 3 gases (CO₂, CH₄ and N₂O) as well as any of the additional four gases (HFCs, PFCs, SF₆ and NF₃) that are included in the Party’s NDC, are covered by an activity under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, or have been previously reported; instead of mandatory requirement to report 7 gases.
Time series Option to report few years in the time series and an earlier “latest reporting year”.	para. 57	Flexibility to report data covering, at a minimum, the reference year/period for its NDC and, in addition, a consistent annual time series from at least 2020 onwards; instead of the mandatory requirement to report a consistent annual time series starting from 1990.
	para. 58	Flexibility to have the latest reporting year as three years prior to the submission of the national inventory report, instead of having the latest reporting year as no more than two years prior the submission.
Mitigation policies and measures, actions and plans
Estimates of expected and achieved GHG emissions reductions for actions and PaMs Option to omit reporting these estimates.	para. 85	Developing country Parties that need flexibility in light of their capacities are encouraged to report estimates of expected and achieved GHG emission reductions for their actions, policies and measures in tabular format; instead of a mandatory requirement to report these estimates.
Projections
Projections of GHG emissions and removals Option to omit reporting projections, or report a shorter projection or report less detailed methodology or coverage.	para. 92	Developing country Parties that need flexibility in light of their capacities are encouraged to report projections pursuant to paras. 93–101 of the MPGs; instead of a mandatory requirement to report such projections.
	para. 95	Flexibility to extend projections at least to the end point of their NDCs; instead of extending projections for at least 15 years beyond the next year ending in zero or five.
	para. 102	Flexibility to report less detailed information on projections (methodology and coverage).
Technical Expert Review (TER)
Format of the TER Option to be subject to a centralized review instead of in-country review.	para. 159	Flexibility to undergo a centralized review instead of an in-country review as required in para. 158 of the MPGs. Parties that are not subject to flexibility in light of their capacities shall undergo an ICR for a) the first BTR, b) at least two BTRs in a 10-year period, of which one is the BTR that contains information on the Party’s achievement of the NDC, c) if there was a recommendation to have an ICR in the previous BTR review report and d) Parties that request it.
Responding to questions of the technical expert review team (TERT) Option for more time to respond to the TERT’s questions or request of additional information.	para. 162 (c)	Flexibility to provide information within three weeks of the request, instead of within two weeks of the request.
Provision of comments to the draft technical expert review report Option for more time to provide comments to the draft report.	para. 162 (f)	Flexibility to provide comments to the draft technical expert review report within three months of its receipt, instead of one month from its receipt.
Facilitative multilateral consideration of progress (FMCP)
Responding to written questions Option for more time to respond in writing to written questions.	para. 192 (c)	Flexibility to respond in writing to Parties’ questions no later than two weeks prior to the FMCP working group session through the online platform, instead of no later than one month prior to the FMCP working group session.

7. Technical Expert Review (TER)

**What is the timeline of a technical expert review (TER) cycle?**
The technical expert review team (TERT) shall complete the full technical expert review cycle no later than 12 months from the start of the TER process (decision 18/CMA.1, annex, para. 162(h)). The secretariat has discretion as to when to organize the review within the two-year cycle. Although, the secretariat must immediately initiate the preparation of the TER process upon submission of the BTR, the date of the technical expert review week must be agreed, at the latest, 14 weeks (3.5 months) prior to the review week after consultations with the Party concerned. In practice, if a BTR is submitted on 31 December, the first review week would not take place until at least mid-April of the following year. Given that review reports are to be completed within 4 months of the review week, the entire process of preparing for the review through to publication of the final report takes at least a bit more than 7.5 months (9.5 months in the case where a Party applies flexibility for providing comments to the draft review report), meaning the first review reports would be published mid-August, at the earliest. As the secretariat can stagger reviews, the 7.5–9.5-month cycle may start at any time in the two-year period, but ideally it will start early enough to allow the Party to incorporate findings from one review into the next BTR reporting. There are specific flexibility provisions for those developing country Parties that need it in the light of their capacities regarding the timing of the review process. Specifically, such developing countries are allowed one additional week to respond to preliminary questions and requests for additional information from the TERT prior to the review week and two additional months to comment on the draft technical expert review report from the TERT (decision 18/CMA.1, annex, paras. 162(c) and 162(f)). Timeline of the Review Process Credit: UNFCCC

**How will a simplified review of annual GHG inventories submitted by developed country Parties be conducted?**
The simplified review involves the secretariat undertaking an initial assessment of the Party’s submission (decision 18/CMA.1, annex, para. 155). The procedures of the initial assessment were established during the first Meeting of Lead Reviewers (LRs) of BTRs (April 2024), with the assistance of the secretariat. The conclusions of the LRs can be found here. A review of the findings of the simplified review will form part of the technical expert review in the subsequent review of the GHG inventory (decision 18/CMA.1, annex, para. 155).

**How will LDCs and SIDS be reviewed and undergo FMCP?**
The MPGs provide a choice to LDCs and SIDS on the type of review when their BTRs are not subject to an in-country review, which may choose to participate in the same centralized review as a group (decision 18/CMA.1, annex, para. 157). Parties may suggest a centralized location for the review other than at the UNFCCC secretariat. In terms of who initiates such a group review, the secretariat may approach a group of countries based on the timing of submissions, and if applicable, results of previous reviews, and seek their interest in a centralized review. There will be a need to consider how many countries could be covered by a single technical expert review team. This number may depend on the overall approach to the review, degree of elaboration and complexity of the information in the BTRs and the number of experts in the technical expert review team. It is also possible that a specific subset of Parties could approach the secretariat requesting such a review. In addition, LDCs and SIDS may choose to participate as a group during the working group phase of a FMCP (decision 18/CMA.1, annex, para. 194).

**Is information on adaptation submitted in the BTR subject to review?**
Decision 9/CMA.4 established that a Party may, on a voluntary basis, request the secretariat to organize a review of the information reported by the Party related to climate change impacts and adaptation under Article 7 of the Paris Agreement (as included in decision 18/CMA.1, annex, chapter IV), as part of the BTR technical expert review. Moreover, if a developed country Party submits adaptation information as an additional chapter in the BTR to meet its reporting obligations for National Communications under the Convention (decision 4/CP.5 (to be updated by 6/CP.25)), this would be subject to review. Such a review for developed countries would be conducted following decision 13/CP.20 (annex, para. 118 (c)(v)). This stems from decision 1/CP.24, para. 43(c) which indicates that if a Party’s NC is subject to review, the review will be conducted in accordance with relevant guidelines in the annex to decision 18/CMA.1 and shall also include a review of the information submitted under para. 43(b) (ii) of decision 1/CP.24 (which refers to adaptation).

**Is information reported on financial, technology development and transfer and capacity-building (FTC) support in the BTR subject to review?**
Information reported by a developed country Party in its BTR on FTC support provided to developing country Parties under Articles 9, 10 and 11 is subject to review by a technical expert review team. Other Parties that choose to provide information in their BTR on FTC support provided as referred to in Article 9, para. 2 may undergo a technical expert review of this information at their discretion. Information reported on FTC needed and received by developing country Parties is not subject to a technical expert review. If a developing country Party chooses to report information on FTC support provided, this information may undergo a technical expert review at the Party’s discretion, as noted above.

8. Institutional Arrangements and Support for Developing Countries

**What is the role of the Consultative Group of Experts (CGE) to support the ETF?**
The primary role of the CGE under the Paris Agreement is to support developing countries in implementing the ETF under Article 13, similar to the work undertaken by the group to support developing countries in fulfilling their measurement and reporting obligations under the Convention. In that context, CGE develops its annual work plans with a view to provide technical support and advice to developing country Parties with focused tasks. For example, the CGE conducts regional webinars and workshops, offers e-learning courses, develops technical materials, conducts annual capacity-building needs assessments, and provides technical advice on the implementation of the training programme for technical experts participating in the TER of BTRs, among other tasks. The CGE, along with lead reviewers, provided technical advice to the secretariat in the development and implementation of the training of the technical expert review teams under the Paris Agreement (decision 18/CMA.1, para. 15 and decision 5/CMA3, paras. 30 and 31), recognizing that the CGE focuses its support on developing countries, while the training programme must be designed and implemented to be applicable to all Parties. For more information about the CGE can be found at this webpage: https://unfccc.int/CGE.

What financial support is available for preparation of NCs and BTRs?

The Global Environment Facility (GEF), as an operating entity of the Financial Mechanism, is entrusted with the responsibility to provide support to developing country Parties to implement both the MRV arrangements under the Convention and the ETF under the Paris Agreement.

The GEF has set aside resources, so that each country can access up to USD 500,000 for the preparation of NCs. There are currently four options for countries to access GEF resources for NCs. In the first option, countries work with a GEF agency of their choice to develop a project proposal. In the second option, countries are part of a UNEP umbrella project. In the third option, countries access the set-aside resources directly from the GEF secretariat. Fourthly, those countries that wish to utilize additional resources can use their STAR allocation to complement the set-aside resources.

The GEF has made available three modalities to developing country Parties to the Paris Agreement, for supporting the preparation of BTRs.

Modality 1, these countries can access up to $600,000 for the preparation of a stand-alone BTR;
Modality 2, can access up to $633,000 for the preparation of a combined BTR and NC;
Modality 3, can access additional (top-up) financing of $250,000, maximum, to an ongoing EA project.

In addition, developing country Parties can access support from the GEF via the Capacity-building Initiative for Transparency (CBIT) program to:

Strengthen national institutions for transparency-related activities in line with national priorities;
Provide relevant tools, training, and assistance for meeting the provisions stipulated in Article 13 of the Agreement; and,
Assist in the improvement of transparency over time.

For more information on obtaining access to GEF support, please contact the GEF.

9. Training for Technical Experts Reviewers under the Enhanced Transparency Framework (ETF)

Is there a training programme to become an expert reviewer of BTRs?

The training program for BTR reviewers was developed in response to decision 5/CMA.3. It includes five courses on the different BTR thematic areas to be reviewed. You can access the training materials here.

The programme offers the following courses (and sub-courses):

Course A: General and cross-cutting aspects for the technical expert review under the ETF under the Paris Agreement (published March 2023, access the course and details on examination registration here);

Course B: Technical review of national inventory reports of GHG emissions and removals, including the sub-courses below (published September 2023, access the course and details on examination registration here):

General guidance and cross-cutting issues
Courses pertaining to the GHG inventory sectors referred to in the MPGs:
1. Energy;
2. Industrial processes and product use;
3. Agriculture;
4. Land use, land use change and forestry; and,
5. Waste;

Course C: Technical review of the information necessary to track progress made in implementing and achieving NDCs under Article 4 of the Paris Agreement (published September 2023, access the course and details on examination registration here);

Course D: Technical review of the information on financial, technology development and transfer and capacity building support provided to developing country Parties under Article 9-11 of the Paris Agreement (published September 2023, access the course and details on examination registration here);

Course E: Technical review of the information on climate change impacts and adaptation reported under Article 7 of the Paris Agreement (published December 2024, access the course and details on examination here).

How many technical review experts are needed to support reviews of the BTRs under the ETF?

The BTR technical expert review process depends on the participation of many qualified and available technical experts. Under the ETF, technical expert review processes could require up to approximately 1,500 qualified and available experts on a biennial basis, depending on the number of BTR submissions. A significant number of new experts completed training and passed examinations ahead of the start of the review process in 2025.

To participate in a technical expert review process, experts must be nominated to the UNFCCC Roster of Experts (RoE) by a national focal point on behalf of the Party or an intergovernmental organization. Experts will also have to complete the relevant training programme and pass examinations before they can be invited to participate in a review.

What is the process to become a technical expert reviewer under the Paris Agreement?

Similar to other review processes under the Convention, technical expert reviewers under the PA must be nominated to the UNFCCC Roster of Experts (RoE) by a country Party or an intergovernmental organization.

Prior to serving on a review team, new technical expert reviewers must complete the training programme referred to in decision 18/CMA.1, paragraph 12(c). Both experienced experts (i.e. those who have participated in training programmes and related technical reviews under the MRV arrangements under the Convention) and new experts will have to take the relevant course(s) and pass the exam(s) to be eligible to participate on a technical expert review team (TERT). Please refer to the decision tree to identify which courses, related to your thematic area of expertise, you have to take.

According to decision 5/CMA.3, Annex VII, paragraph 8, experienced experts will only have to complete Course A “General and cross-cutting aspects for the technical expert review under the ETF under the Paris Agreement”. However, the experienced expert may complete additional thematic courses if they wish to expand their scope for reviews.

Find more information on how to become a technical expert reviewer under the Paris Agreement here.

What previous experience does an expert need to take part in the training programme to become technical expert reviewer of BTRs?

The training and experience of a technical expert reviewers is different from capacity-building activities related to meeting reporting obligations under the Paris Agreement. However, there is a clear link between the two processes. Following existing approaches, the expectation is that Parties and intergovernmental organizations nominate to the UNFCCC RoE, experts who already have participated in capacity-building activities and have relevant experience with national reporting.

Nominated experts should be able to take the technical review training courses, successfully pass the exams, and have the availability to participate in the review process. Following participation in a technical expert review team, experts can bring experiences from the review back to the national level and help improve the national reporting system.

Find more information on how to become a technical expert reviewer under the Paris Agreement here.

10. Reporting, Review and FMCP tools

Will the secretariat develop reporting tools to support reporting of the BTR?

Yes. The secretariat developed and made available in June 2024 three reporting tools to facilitate reporting.

A reporting tool to submit common reporting tables for the GHG inventory;
A reporting tool to submit the common tabular format for tracking progress made in implementing and achieving NDCs, and;
A reporting tool to submit the common tabular format for financial, technology transfer and development and capacity building provided, mobilized, needed and received.

To facilitate the use of these tools, user manuals and tutorial videos are available on the dedicated ETF help page

Are further enhancements planned for the reporting tools?

Additional enhancements to the ETF reporting tools have been identified to better meet Parties’ needs. However, their implementation is constrained by limited available financial resources.

Are the reporting tools the same as the CRF Reporter (for GHG Inventory) and common tabular formats for BRs used by developed Parties?

No. The new tools reflect the common reporting tables and common tabular formats adopted in decision 5/CMA.3. and took into consideration experience in implementing the current MRV system under the Convention and Kyoto Protocol. The ETF reporting tools are new tools established for reporting under the Paris Agreement.

How will information technology (IT) tools evolve to support the ETF?

The ETF benefits from a full set of new reporting and review tools. To the extent possible, the secretariat will start streamlining or decommissioning the existing systems, tools and applications under the current MRV system and the tools for other processes (NDCs, NAMAs registries, etc.). The secretariat has already implemented some enhancements to existing tools (BR common tabular formats (CTF), BR data interface, virtual team rooms, review tools and statistical outlier detection tool, etc.) to ensure the effective operation of these tools for the finalization of current MRV requirements.

11. Parties to the Convention that are not Parties to the Paris Agreement

**How does implementation of the modalities, procedures and guidelines (MPGs) affect Parties to the Convention that are not Parties to the Paris Agreement?**
Non-PA Parties must continue meeting their reporting obligations under Articles 4 and 12 of the Convention, as appropriate (i.e. submission of an annual GHG Inventory for developed countries, national communications and BR or BUR) (para. 44 of decision 1/CP.24) using the relevant reporting guidelines (decisions 6/CP.25, 17/CP.8, 1/CP.16, 2/CP.17, and 24/CP.19). *These Parties may, but are not required, to use the MPGs* (decision 18/CMA.1) as the relevant reporting guidelines. This means that non-Parties to the PA may use: Either decision 24/CP.19 in its entirety or decision 18/CMA.1 in its entirety for reporting their annual GHG inventory (para. 44 of decision 24/CP.19). Either decision 6/CP.25 or 17/CP.8 to guide the full national communications reporting, or they may use decision 18/CMA.1 for information contained in the national communications reporting guidelines plus adding chapters on Research and Systematic Observation, and Education, Training and Public Awareness. Adaptation must be reported using either decision 6/CP.25 or 18/CMA.1 for developed countries and either decision 17/CP.8 or 18/CMA.1 for developing countries. Developed and developing countries may continue to report a separate NC every 4 years or they may choose to submit a single BR/NC or BUR/NC report (as applicable) in the years the submission of NCs and BRs/BURs coincide. The review guidelines used for the review of these Parties’ submissions will be dependent on the reporting guidelines applied. The ICA process will continue following the modalities and guidelines of ICA in accordance with decision 2/CP.17.

12. REDD+

**What is REDD+?**
REDD+ is a framework established by countries under the UNFCCC to protect forests and combat climate change. The acronym stands for Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries. The “+” refers to additional activities that protect the climate: the conservation and enhancement of forest carbon stocks, and the sustainable management of forests. Under this framework, developing countries can receive results-based payments for measurable, reported, and verified reductions in emissions—mainly by reducing deforestation. These payments provide a strong incentive to protect and sustainably manage forests. For more details, see the What is REDD+? page. Credit: UNFCCC

**What are the requirements for a country to be eligible to receive results-based payments for REDD+?**
In order to obtain and receive results-based payments for results from the implementation of REDD+ activities, developing country Parties should have the following in place: A national strategy or action plan; An assessed forest reference emission level and/or forest reference level; A national forest monitoring system; A system for providing information on how the safeguards are being addressed and respected; and The results-based actions (REDD+ results) should also be fully measured, reported and verified (MRV).

**Are there any differences in the technical assessment of forest reference emission levels and/or forest reference levels (FRELs/FRLs) under the Convention (MRV) and the Paris Agreement (ETF)?**
REDD+ reporting continues under Article 5 of the Paris Agreement. The technical assessment of submissions from Parties on proposed forest reference emission levels and/or forest reference levels has not been changed and continues to be organized as a centralized activity once per year (normally in March).

Are there any differences in the technical analysis of REDD+ results under the Convention (MRV) and the Paris Agreement (ETF)?

Under the Paris Agreement, technical annexes with REDD+ results are submitted with the Biennial Transparency Reports or BTRs (instead of Biennial Update Reports under the Convention). The technical analysis of REDD+ results takes place concurrently with the technical expert review of the BTR. it’s the mandates for the overall process, scope and final output of the technical analysis remain the same as under the Convention.

Topic	Convention	Paris Agreement
Submission	As an annex to the BUR (decision 14/CP.19, para. 6 and 7)	As an annex to the BTR (decision 18/CMA.1, para. 14)
Technical analysis	As part of international consultation and analysis of BURs (decision 2/CP.17, annex IV)	Concurrently with the technical expert review of BTRs (decision 18/CMA.1, para. 14)
Format	In a single location (normally took place in Bonn, Germany) (decision 20/CP.19, annex, para. 7)	The same format as the technical expert review of BTR (centralized or in-country) (decision 18/CMA.1, annex, para. 151)
Scope	Listed in decision 14/CP.19, para. 11	Listed in decision 14/CP.19, para.11
Output	Technical analysis technical report (decision 14/CP.19, para. 14)	Technical analysis technical report (decision 14/CP.19, para. 14)

**Where can submissions from Parties and relevant organizations related to REDD+ be accessed?**
All submissions from the Parties and relevant organizations are available on the REDD+ Web Platform. The information shared on the REDD+ Web Platform can be accessed through three entry points: by submitting country; by submitting organization; or by topic.

13. Reporting of cooperative approaches and internationally transferred mitigation outcomes under Article 6 under the ETF

**What do Parties need to report in relation to the use of cooperative approaches and internationally transferred mitigation outcomes under Article 6 in their BTRs?**
According to the MPGs included in the annex to decision 18/CMA.1, the guidance on reporting information related to the use of cooperative approaches and internationally transferred mitigation outcomes under Article 6 in their BTRs is the following: Each Party shall report seven gases (CO2, methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) and nitrogen trifluoride (NF3)); those developing country Parties that need flexibility in the light of their capacities with respect to this provision have the flexibility to instead report at least three gases (CO2, CH4 and N2O) as well as any of the additional four gases (HFCs, PFCs, SF6 and NF3) that are included in the Party’s NDC under Article 4 of the Paris Agreement, are covered by an activity under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, or have been previously reported (para. 48); Each Party shall provide a description of its NDC under Article 4, against which progress will be tracked. The information provided shall include the following, as applicable, including any updates to information previously provided: Intention to use cooperative approaches that involve the use of internationally transferred mitigation outcomes under Article 6 towards NDCs under Article 4 of the Paris Agreement (para. 64 (f)); Each Party shall provide a description of each methodology and/or accounting approach used, which shall include, as applicable and available to the Party’s NDC under Article 4: Methodologies associated with any cooperative approaches that involve the use of internationally transferred mitigation outcomes towards its NDC under Article 4, consistent with CMA guidance on cooperative approaches under Article 6 (para. 75 (f)); Each Party shall describe how double counting of net GHG emission reductions has been avoided, including in accordance with guidance developed in relation to Article 6, if relevant (para. 76 (d)); Each Party that participates in cooperative approaches that involve the use of internationally transferred mitigation outcomes towards an NDC under Article 4, or authorizes the use of mitigation outcomes for international mitigation purposes other than achievement of its NDC, shall also provide the following information in the structured summary consistently with relevant decisions adopted by the CMA on Article 6: (i) The annual level of anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks covered by the NDC on an annual basis reported biennially; (ii) An emissions balance reflecting the level of anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks covered by its NDC adjusted on the basis of corresponding adjustments undertaken by effecting an addition for internationally transferred mitigation outcomes first-transferred/transferred and a subtraction for internationally transferred mitigation outcomes used/acquired, consistent with decisions adopted by the CMA on Article 6; (iii) Any other information consistent with decisions adopted by the CMA on reporting under Article 6; (iv) Information on how each cooperative approach promotes sustainable development; and ensures environmental integrity and transparency, including in governance; and applies robust accounting to ensure inter alia the avoidance of double counting, consistent with decisions adopted by the CMA on Article 6 (para. 77 (d)); In order to enhance the transparency of reporting, a description of the underlying assumptions, methodologies and definitions, as applicable, used to identify and/or report, including information on the efforts taken to avoid double counting, including on how double counting was avoided between the resources reported as provided or mobilized, and the resources used under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement by the acquiring Party for use towards the achievement of its NDC (para. 121 (m) (iii)).

**How is information on Article 6 reviewed?**
Information reported for the cooperative approach is subject to an "Article 6 technical expert review" (Article 6 TER) that could happen through a desk or centralized review. An "Article 6 technical expert review team" (Article 6 TERT) coordinated by the secretariat and composed by qualified independent technical experts (with two lead reviewers) will review the information submitted in the Initial Report (updated Initial Report) and Regular Information (as an annex to a BTR) (Decision 2/CMA.3, annex, para. 25,26). The review follows the guidelines set out in Decision 2/CMA.3, annex, Chapter V (Review), the Article 6 TER Guidelines in Decision 6/CMA.4, Annex II and Decision 4/CMA.6, Chapter VII. In terms of review timing in relation to BTR’s submission, the initial and updated initial reports that are submitted standalone (i.e., not together with the Parties’ BTR) are subject to a review by the Article 6 TERT during the period after the calendar period in which they were submitted. The calendar periods can span either three or six months. Furthermore, initial and updated initial reports may be submitted with the regular information (annex to Parties’ BTR) and can be reviewed together in a single Article 6 TER. (Decision 6/CMA.4, annex II, para. 12) The Article 6 TER conducts: A review of the consistency of the information submitted by the participating Party under chapter IV (Reporting), in particular sub-chapters IV.A (Initial report) and IV.C (Regular information) Consideration of the results of the consistency check referred to in decision 2/CMA.3, annex, paragraph 33(a), performed by the secretariat on the information submitted by the participating Party for recording in the Article 6 database referred to in the annex to decision 2/CMA.3. Specification of recommended actions to be taken by the participating Party, including recommendations on: How to improve consistency with the requirements of the annex to decision 2/CMA.3 and any future relevant decisions of the CMA; How to address identified inconsistencies in quantified information that is reported under chapter IV.B (Annual information) and IV.C (Regular information) of the annex to decision 2/CMA.3 and/or identified by the secretariat as part of the consistency check. Consideration of any recommendations on inconsistency and areas for improvement identified in previous Article 6 TER reports for the participating Party and reiteration of those recommendations in cases of non-responsiveness of the participating Party in its latest submission. Identification of capacity-building needs and areas for improvement in consultation with the participating Party (Decision 6/CMA.4, annex II, para. 2, 5, 6 and 7). Outcomes of the Article TER include: Article 6 TERT will prepare a review report (using an agreed outline) and the Article 6 TER reports shall be made publicly available on the centralized accounting and reporting platform (CARP). Significant and persistent inconsistencies identified in the Article 6 TER reports shall be publicly displayed on the CARP as such, and the duration of and any non-responsiveness in relation to significant and persistent inconsistencies, including whether they are single-Party or cross-Party inconsistencies, shall also be publicly displayed (Decision 4/CMA.6, para. 38). Article 6 TERT will forward its review reports for consideration in the ETF TER. The ETF TERT will take into consideration while not making changes to the outcomes and recommendations from the Article 6 TER (Decision 18/CMA/1, annex, section VII).

Operationalization of the Enhanced Transparency Framework

Objectives

Area of flexibility

Reference in MPGs (Annex to decision 18/CMA.1)

Flexibility provisions for those developing country Parties that need flexibility in the light of their capacities