2.1 Reports where Non-Annex I countries are required to outline their institutional arrangements

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.

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.

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).

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.

2.2 The UNFCCC-CGE components for describing institutional arrangements

A Handbook on institutional arrangements to support MRV/ transparency of climate action and support [2], recommends that institutional arrangements can be organised around five separate components, Fig 1A.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 1.

Key components (A) of institutional arrangements: (1) organisational mandates, (2) expertise, (3) data flows, (4) systems & tools, (5) stakeholder engagement, for reporting and implementing the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement, from UNFCCC-CGE, (2020) and (B) the Star Organisational Model, adapted from Galbraith, J. R., (2014).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000327.g001

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

2.3 Using the star organisational model to describe institutional arrangements

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].

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

1. The McKinsey 7-S Framework, developed in the 1980s [7]; the seven components are structure, strategy, systems, skills, style, staff, and shared values.
2. Galbraith’s Star Model, which has been used since the 1970s and includes five components: strategy, people, structure, processes, rewards.

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.

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.

2.4 The star organisational model

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.

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.

2.4.5 Processes.

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].

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.

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].

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].

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.

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.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 1. Processes to be carried out and reported in NC and BUR for Non-Annex I countries.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000327.t001

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.

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).

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

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.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

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).

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

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.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

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.

4.7 Key challenges facing countries in establishing institutional arrangements

The key challenge identified from a structural perspective is that the coordination of the UNFCCC tends to be assigned to a single unit within the coordinating ministry and often at a low level. In addition, questions have been raised about the reliance on GEF funds for writing NC and BURs, and the timing of its availability, and especially around the fact that it supports a “project”-based temporary structure rather than providing ongoing, reliable support to the coordinating ministry. Accordingly, some countries have encountered challenges in advancing WGs to a more permanent status within the structure (including putting them on a legal footing), which may be necessary to ensure representation across government departments and non-state actors.

In this study, some interviewees highlighted challenges around the perceived disjointedness of the structure for the UNFCCC agenda. In particular, it was considered important for the coordinating ministry, sector ministers and non-state actors, and the FP (focal person) to work cohesively, to institutionalise climate reporting, and to use the subsequent reports to effectively shape policy.

The limited number of staff posts assigned to the coordinating ministry for UNFCCC agenda is often raised as a challenge. Similarly, lack of staff expertise has been cited as a key challenge, as many of the UNFCCC recommended processes have extensive guidelines to follow. Another challenge cited is the variable expertise and commitment of both state and non-state members of WGs.

Reluctance to incorporate the UNFCCC work into annual sector plans, with dedicated budgets to facilitate staff being appraised on this work was cited as an incentive challenge. In addition, many of the processes depend on having a common MRV system in place across government. Countries reported coordination, legal, structural, financial and technical challenges in establishing their MRV system.

5.1. Strategy

This study reveals the importance of including strategy in any framework for determining what constitutes institutional arrangements for reporting under the UNFCCC and Paris Agreement. This is important because the strategy is the document that sets out what constitutes institutional arrangements, and how they will be established and maintained. The Star model, which includes strategy and five inter-linked components, forms an ideal framework for defining what constitutes institutional arrangements.

Our study illustrates the importance of strategy to guide other components and how inter-dependent the components are. In other words, the design of institutional arrangements starts with a vision and the vision in this case is outlined in the NDC strategy, where all components of the institutional arrangements are influenced by the strategy. The inclusion of strategy also helps developing countries to identify upfront the funds required to implement their NDC strategies (internal and external) before they start to implement any other component of institutional arrangements. Our study highlights how funds can influence the establishment of institutional arrangements.

We consider that the star model has the potential to provide a additional useful perspective for defining what components to include when designing and describing institutional arrangements, that is complementary with the five components described by UNFCCC-CGE (organisation mandates, expertise, data flows, systems and tools, and stakeholder engagement; Fig 1A.

Although strategy is not mentioned by name in the UNFCCC-CGE components nor in its sub-components, there is a recognition that climate goals and targets should inform and drive the improvement of institutional arrangements (Handbook pp18,53). Countries are expected to demonstrate how institutional arrangements interact with their other national strategies, p 59.

All Parties are required by UNFCCC and Paris Agreement to submit their periodically updated NDCs (strategy). This highlights the importance attributed to institutional arrangements by Parties for achieving their UNFCCC and Paris commitments. Furthermore, the NC, BUR and NIR reports are about providing the evidence that the strategy (i.e. NDC in this context) has been implemented, following the logic that no strategy will mean no reports.

The usefulness of the other four components of the Star model in determining what constitutes institutional arrangements are articulated below.

5.2 Structure

The ‘structure’ component emphasises both the distribution of power (horizontal and vertical) across a ministry, government or agency. In this instance, this relates to the entities responsible for planning, implementing and reporting on the UNFCCC and Paris Agreement. Two important dimensions of structure include division of labour, and the shape of the ministry with key responsibility for reporting. Our results show the importance of identifying the shape (i.e. the number of levels, representing vertical distribution of power) involved in the UNFCCC and Paris Agreement policy implementation at national level, and the span (i.e. the number of people a supervisor has reporting to them). The level is important because of the influence it represents. These dimensions can facilitate greater clarity for Parties on the structure component, including describing the level at which to place stakeholders and the functions assigned to them.

The UNFCCC-CGE encourages countries (under the “organizational mandates” component of institutional arrangements) to include in their NC, BUR and NI reports a structure (including a visual summary) “as it helps to define coherent roles and responsibilities among involved organisations”. While this is useful, roles and responsibilities alone do not define the distribution of power and levels. The “organisation mandates” component can be interpreted to be aligned with the “structure” component as understood in the Star model, especially as the sub-components of organisational mandates are (a) stakeholder groups and (b) roles and responsibilities.

In other contexts, the “organisational mandates” component could be interpreted as describing the purpose or ‘raison d’être’ of the organisation (i.e. why it exists). Within the Star model framework, this aligns with the "strategy" component. Requesting countries to incorporate structure under organisational mandates component, without explicitly listing it as a sub-component, could lead to confusion in interpretation. It might also encourage countries to avoid demonstrating the distribution of power and structure, a key emphasis of the Star model.

Given that UNFCCC-CGE requests countries to include structure, this can suggest that labelling the component ‘structure’, as understood in the Star model, rather than under organisational mandates, would bring out clearly the related two sub-components and would add more clarity in describing the location of the stakeholders in the levels of the organisation.

The establishment of WGs, made up of many different stakeholders, is considered a key part of the structure and should be described. The WGs tend to reflect the horizontal distribution of power, where the division of labour is key. In this case, lateral coordination and lateral capability are fundamental aspects of the structure. Well-defined “processes” (another Star model component) are essential to facilitate this type of coordination and demonstrate the interlinkages between components emphasised in the Star model. This interlinkage between components is not explicitly emphasised in the UNFCCC-CGE components.

We argue that having a component labelled structure with its broader meaning as in the Star model is a useful, clear and necessary component for determining what constitutes institutional arrangements.

5.3 Processes

The component of ‘processes’ for the functions of planning, measuring, and reporting are core to NC, NIR and BUR preparation and are vital for work efficiency, conformity and transparency. The two UNFCCC- CGE components of “data flows” and “systems and tools”, while very important, are considered more as enablers for implementing the processes associated with the three functions. These two separate components are combined in the Star model under ‘processes’, which provides the opportunity to identify and describe this component of institutional arrangements at the higher level of function (with its processes), incorporating the enablers of systems and tools, and ensuring the data flows that are required to implement the processes.

This component facilitates countries in explaining in a more structured manner why a process for a particular function was not followed. It encourages a distinction, and yet a close link, between the function, the recommended process (similar to a methodology) and the tools and data required to follow the methodology. This is necessary to achieve the output (quality NC, NI and BUR reports). Countries may describe all of these three inter-linked aspects of the processes component, which could help to facilitate the shape of the support provided to countries to improve their MRV institutional arrangements.

Describing systems & tools, and data flows as two distinct components, without reference to the three functions related to NC, NIR and BUR may only present a partial description of this component of institutional arrangements. Ironically, although processes are not mentioned in the UNFCCC-CGE as a component, nor its sub- components, the UNFCCC-CGE has provided significant support to developing countries to date, on improving the processes to be adopted when writing the NIR, BUR and NC reports.

It is logical to have a specific component called processes (with its broader meaning as in the Star model) as it is a useful, clear and necessary component for determining what constitutes institutional arrangements. This component captures better the focus on the recommended processes (methodologies) used in the functions of planning, measuring and reporting while highlighting the tools and data required to follow the methodology. The emphasis of the Star model on interlinkages of components, helps keep the focus of understanding any component relative to another. In this case, processes are implemented relative to the strategy, but constrained or facilitated by the structure adopted, people recruited and salaries provided.

5.4 People

Of all the five Star components, the people component is the one most aligned with the UNFCC-CGE component of expertise and its sub-components. The Star model emphasises the need to focus on the ‘people’ component, guided by the strategy and but with linkages to other components. This means that a country first defines its strategy in this case NDC and its sub-MRV strategy, then by defining the functions required to implement the strategy, the structure required, followed by defining the job descriptions and recruitment process for qualified staff to implement the functions. The people component of institutional arrangements helps to focus the description on the people required and their expertise, and the recruitment system adopted, to ensure the necessary capacity is available to implement the NCD/ MRV strategies. Our study indicates that when the relevant expertise was not available, countries rely on recruiting temporary staff such as PMCs and consultants.

In principle, the use of the Star model can help a country to avoid describing the people component in isolation from other components. The people to be recruited depends on the framing in the strategy, the processes to be implemented, the structure adopted and the rewards available. The focus on the interlinkages between components helps to pinpoint issues and complexities. For example, it could help to identify discrepancies that could occur between the number of staff against a function or the level that the function is assigned in a structures, or the salary of a person not appropriate for the level in a structure.

5.5 Rewards

Also linked to staff needs and expertise, is the component of ‘rewards’, seen as a sensitive issue and typically not included in the UNFCCC recommended components. Yet the purpose of the organisation’s reward system is to motivate the staff to accomplish the organisation’s strategy, in this case the NDC and MRV system. It is important for countries to describe the type of tools they use to motivate and incentivise their staff including compensation, promotions, recognition systems, and others. This would provide an opportunity to more openly discuss issues that could affect staff motivation and performance in relation to the NDCs and MRVs. The inclusion of a rewards component in an institutional arrangements framework can be very useful. Our study illustrated that temporary staff and consultants are generally paid more per unit time due to the temporary nature of their work. In addition, our study showed that in countries lacking external GEF funds for establishing components (strategy, structure, people, processes and reward, the NC, NI and BURs run risks of not being written or being sub-optimally written. It is important that when designing and establishing institutional arrangements that rewards are considered so that funds to pay salaries and incentivises are planned for (like any other component).

5.6 Summary of usefulness of the Star model

Our study reveals the importance of including strategy as a component in any framework for determining what constitutes institutional arrangements institutional arrangements” for Member State reporting within the UNFCCC and Paris Agreement? We also reveal the importance of having strategy guide other components, and of making components reinforce each other.

The inclusion of strategy as a component can help developing countries to better identify upfront the funds required to implement their NDC strategies (i.e. both internal and/or external funds) before they start to implement any other component of institutional arrangements. Our study indicated how funds can influence the type of institutional arrangements establishment.

Having a component labelled structure with its broader meaning as in the Star model is a useful, clear and necessary component. Including a specific component called processes with its broader meaning as in the Star model is also useful as it captures the focus on the recommended processes (methodologies) used in the functions of planning, measuring and reporting, while also highlighting the tools and data required to follow the methodology. Our study further reveals that it is important, when designing and establishing institutional arrangements, that people and rewards are considered as two components so that funds to pay salaries and incentivise people are planned for, whereby funds and incentives are made available like any other component.

The use of the Star model can assist a country to avoid describing components in isolation from other components; e.g. the people to be recruited depends on the framing in the strategy, the processes to be implemented, the structure adopted and the rewards available. The use of the Star model also helps organisation to make clearer decisions as the five components are directly controllable by leadership teams.

Our study indicates that the emphasis on having components reinforce (interlink) each other is a positive dimension in any institutional arrangements framework. Such interlinkage helps to illustrate the challenges of drafting NC, NI and BURs without sufficient funding or skilled personnel. It also helped to reveal that the availability of GEF funds for writing NC and BURs that had a time frame of 12 months or 24 months tended to encourage a “project type” institutional arrangements, where many of the components established were temporary in nature.

The use of the Star model keeps the focus at the strategy level helping countries to think longer term and to consider that establishing institutional arrangements for the implementation of their NDC and MRV system is not about choosing to implement one component above another as all five components are interlinked/ It does emphasise that it is a serious commitment that requires political will, finance, time and expertise. The Star model furtjer shows that it is challenging and shortsighted to change organisations in a piecemeal manner. Indeed, whatever components need to be changed, have to be changed in a manner that each component reinforces the other.

We recognise that there are limits to the Star model. The limits of the application of Star model are not so much about the model itself, as the interpretation of what each component entails is clear. However, given the inertial effect and path dependency of existing policy processes and reporting frameworks, Parties may consider it burdensome (and indeed difficult) to introduce a new dimension to their reporting under the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement. This could be overcome by developing easy to use common templates to facilitate countries to describe what is in place for each component, highlighting the relationship of the strategy component to other components, and between components. Such reporting templates could also be used as a basis to seek external funds to more effectively implement a just transition to sustainable Institutional arrangements and therefore have two purposes.