Document Type

Working Paper

Publication Date



To succeed, the hybrid model of international climate policy embodied in the Paris Agreement requires countries to deliver their nationally determined contributions (NDCs) and to progressively increase collective and individual efforts over time. The effectiveness of this type of regime will require international review processes that provide robust information about countries’ efforts and trajectories and give substantial opportunities for state and non-state actor engagement with this information. The Paris Agreement creates three different review processes, but leaves critical details regarding each to future decisions: It provides for a review of implementation of individual NDCs under an “enhanced transparency framework”, comprising a technical expert review and multilateral consideration (Article 13). It puts in place a global stock take every five years to assess the collective progress towards achieving the purpose and long-term goals of the Agreement (Article 14), preceded by a mitigation-focused facilitative dialogue in 2018. It establishes a mechanism to facilitate implementation and promote compliance through a committee that is expert-based, non- adversarial and non-punitive. (Article 15). It is essential for Parties to develop effective modalities, procedures and guidelines, as mandated by Decision 1/CP.21, for each of these processes. To this end, this discussion brief highlights essential considerations and potential options for each process.


This is an author's manuscript of a discussion brief published by the Stockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm, Sweden. The published version is available at

This discussion brief builds upon the workshop “Reviewing Implementation and Compliance under the Paris Agreement”, held at Arizona State University, 7–8 April 2016. It was written by Harro van Asselt (SEI), Thomas Hale (Blavatnik School of Government, University of Oxford), Kenneth Abbott (Arizona State University), Yamide Dagnet (World Resources Institute), Meinhard Doelle (Schulich School of Law, Dalhousie University), Achala Abeysinghe (International Institute for Environment and Development), Manjana Milkoreit (School of Sustainability, Walton Sustainability Solutions Initiatives, Arizona State University), Caroline Dihl Prolo (International Institute for Environment and Development) and Bryce Rudyk (Guarini Center on Environmental, Energy and Land Use Law, New York University School of Law). All have contributed in their personal capacities; views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of the institutions with which they are affiliated. The authors would like to thank Christina Voigt and Jake Werksman for comments on an earlier draft.