The underlying notion is that transparency will encourage action. This is the idea that if the Netherlands knows the rest of the world is watching, it will set more ambitious targets and make more of an effort to achieve them. What is more, if countries are aware of each other’s plans they can be confident that they are not alone in taking action and that all other countries are working equally hard on the problem. But are these assumptions correct? Gupta emphasizes that it may not work this way in practice. “In global climate action, the emphasis is largely on transparency because we could not agree on the politically difficult questions, such as which actions are most urgent and who needs to act.” That is why she and her research group are now examining the actual effects of transparency.

Her research shows that what countries are willing to be transparent about is largely determined by political forces. “Transparency requirements don’t always focus on the aspects that matter the most. Countries may prefer to report on topics that are least controversial politically. They would rather be transparent about what they do well than about the goals they fail to achieve.” The Paris Agreement, for example, puts a lot of emphasis on improving reporting of CO₂ emissions and far less on reporting of climate adaptation or the transfer of funds from developed countries to developing countries. This may help to explain the lack of transparency among developing countries. Many do not have the reporting infrastructure needed to keep track of their greenhouse gas emissions, with information on total amounts and the sectors responsible for emissions. “The Paris Agreement focuses on improving that infrastructure. But for small countries that perhaps only contribute 0.1 per cent to global emissions, it may make more sense to report mainly on what financing they need for climate actions. But that element is not part of the mandatory reporting.”

Another limitation of the transparency approach is that many actions are hard to quantify. Take the effort a country puts into adaptation — improving how well it can cope with the consequences of climate change. Adaptation is a key category of climate action but it is difficult to measure. As a result, a lot of time and money is spent on figuring out how to report on this rather than on the actual measures. “It is a problem if reporting takes priority over what really needs to be done.”

What is more, there is no requirement for transparency in the reports about crucial factors contributing to climate change such as the subsidies countries give to fossil fuels. “Instead of making such harmful activities the target of transparency, the Paris Agreement focuses its attention elsewhere, for example on getting a small country like Fiji to improve its reporting on carbon emissions. Yet while climate change is having a serious impact on Fiji, there is no mandatory reporting required on the extent of the damage suffered.” In other words, while increasingly detailed reports are being produced on certain topics, these reports may also divert attention from the real issues at stake. “Transparency is limited to things that all countries can agree on and that all countries find palatable to report on.”

To find out whether transparency encourages climate action or in fact acts as an obstacle, Gupta’s first step was to see how transparent countries are in practice. Do they produce reports, and if so what do they report on? She found that countries differed considerably in the approach and content. That made it difficult to find a causal link between transparency and climate action. “For example, there is no shared definition for climate finance provided by developed countries to developing countries. This means each country can use whatever definition it wants. So you can’t get a coherent picture of the funding provided by developed countries from these transparency reports.”

Does Gupta never get discouraged by smokescreens and distractions from the actions actually needed to tackle climate change, when we are all facing such a huge impending disaster? Not at the moment, she says, as a lot can be achieved in a short time if the situation is urgent enough. “The Covid-19 pandemic has shown that countries can and will invest large sums of money to tackle a crisis. Apparently, that sense of urgency is lacking for climate change, so we get stuck in endless reports, calls for more data and discussions about ever greater transparency. However, what we urgently need is for developed countries to drastically reduce their emissions in line with Paris temperature targets, while also providing large sums of money to developing countries to help them to act and adapt.”

Gupta is under no illusion that her research will lead to changes in the short term. “Changing the politics is not that easy. The first and most important ingredient for change is to raise awareness of the issues. Let's take a step back and ask ourselves if our assumptions about transparency are correct.” She herself is helping raise awareness by publishing articles in journals that are read by policymakers. What is more, she is active in policy networks with NGOs, think tanks and other researchers, where she can make sure her research findings are taken into account in the development of transparency requirements within new climate policy.