Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-fx4k7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-22T05:22:51.011Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Satellite Measurement of GHG Emissions: Prospects for Enhancing Transparency and Answerability under International Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2019

Timiebi Aganaba-Jeanty  and
Anna Huggins
Timiebi Aganaba-Jeanty
Affiliation:
School for the Future of Innovation in Society, appointed at the Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ (United States (US)). Email: taganabajeanty@asu.edu.
Anna Huggins
Affiliation:
Faculty of Law, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane (Australia). Email: a.huggins@qut.edu.au.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Recent technological advancements are facilitating the use of satellite remote-sensing techniques for the measurement of atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gas emissions. This article evaluates the potential for these satellite-enabled measurements to contribute to transparency and answerability for state emissions, with a focus on international space law and policy, and the Paris Agreement to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. We show that in the context of the international space governance framework, the dissemination of integrated emissions data sets has the potential to enhance public answerability for the mitigation performance of states. Under the Paris Agreement, there is scope for space-based measurement techniques to provide an independent data source to support verification activities for national emissions inventories, and for aggregated data to be utilized as part of the global stocktake under Article 14. There are, however, a number of impediments to translating these transparency gains into enhanced answerability for states’ emissions reduction pledges.

Keywords

International space lawParis AgreementSatellitesGreenhouse gas emissionsTransparencyAccountability

Information

Type
Article
Information
Transnational Environmental Law , Volume 8 , Issue 2 , July 2019 , pp. 303 - 326
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

We gratefully acknowledge the valuable comments and suggestions of the anonymous TEL reviewers.

References

1 As Hardwick and Graven explain, ‘[s]atellite measurements derive atmospheric concentrations of gases using the properties of gases to absorb electromagnetic radiation at specific wavelengths’: S. Hardwick & H. Graven, ‘Satellite Observations to Support Monitoring of Greenhouse Gas Emissions’, Imperial College London, Grantham Institute Briefing Paper No. 16, Mar. 2016, p. 4, available at: https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/grantham-institute/public/publications/briefing-papers/Satellite-observations-to-support-monitoring-of-greenhouse-gas-emissions-Grantham-BP-16.pdf.

2 See GHGSat, ‘GHGSat Global Emissions Monitoring’ (2018), available at: http://www.ghgsat.com. On the recent partnership between California and Planet Labs, see J. Rainey, ‘California Gov. Jerry Brown to Launch Satellite to Track Greenhouse Gas Emissions’, NBC News online, 15 Sept. 2018, available at: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/california-gov-jerry-brown-launch-satellite-track-greenhouse-gas-emissions-n909811.

3 The GeoCARB mission is planned to launch around 2022: NASA, ‘NASA Announces First Geostationary Vegetation, Atmospheric Carbon Mission’, Press Release, 6 Dec. 2016, available at: https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-announces-first-geostationary-vegetation-atmospheric-carbon-mission.

4 R. Nasser, ‘Space-based Measurements to Quantify Anthropogenic CO2 and CH4 Emissions’, 2016, available at: http://surveygizmoresponseuploads.s3.amazonaws.com/fileuploads/15647/2604456/191-bd0a81fe7f3b09692172638a5915c012_NassarRay.pdf; T. Aganaba-Jeanty, ‘Satellites, Remote Sensing and Big Data: Legal Implications for Measuring Emissions’, Centre for International Governance Innovation, CIGI Paper No. 15, Nov. 2017, p. 7, available at: https://www.cigionline.org/publications/satellites-remote-sensing-and-big-data-legal-implications-measuring-emissions.

5 WMO & United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), ‘Concept Paper and Annotated Outline’, EC-68/Doc 4.5(1) (2016), available at: http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/arep/gaw/ghg/documents/EC_68_ConceptPaper_IG3IS_DRAFT_V14.pdf.

6 Centre National d’Études Spatiales (CNES), ‘New Delhi Declaration Comes into Effect: World's Space Agencies Working to Tackle Climate Change’, Press Release, 18 May 2016, available at: https://presse.cnes.fr/en/new-delhi-declaration-comes-effect-worlds-space-agencies-working-tackle-climate-change.

7 See Aganaba-Jeanty, n. 4 above.

8 See, e.g., Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (Outer Space Treaty), London (United Kingdom), Moscow (Russia), Washington, DC (US), 27 Jan. 1967, in force 10 Oct. 1967, Art. 1, available at: https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%20610/volume-610-I-8843-English.pdf.

9 Paris (France), 12 Dec. 2015, in force 4 Nov. 2016, available at: http://unfccc.int/paris_agreement/items/9485.php.

10 New York, NY (US), 9 May 1992, in force 21 Mar. 1994, available at: https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf.

11 Marks, S., ‘Naming Global Administrative Law’ (2005) 37(4) New York University Journal of International Law and Politics, pp. 995–1001Google Scholar, at 998.

12 Gupta, A. & van Asselt, H., ‘Transparency in Multilateral Climate Politics: Furthering (or Distracting From) Accountability?’ (2017) 11(2) Regulation & Governance, pp. 1–17Google Scholar.

13 Ibid., p. 5.

14 Outer Space Treaty, n. 8 above, Art. 1.

15 Leal-Arcas, R. & Morelli, A., ‘The Resilience of the Paris Climate Agreement: Negotiation and Implementing the Climate Regime’ (2018) 31(1) Georgetown Environmental Law Review, pp. 1–64Google Scholar.

16 Paris Agreement, n. 9 above, Art. 13(3); Aganaba-Jeanty, n. 4 above, p. 9.

17 See, e.g., Gupta, A. & Mason, M. (eds), Transparency in Global Environmental Governance: Critical Perspectives (The MIT Press, 2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hunter, D.B., ‘The Emerging Norm of Transparency in International Environmental Governance’, in Ala'i, P. & Vaughn, R.G. (eds), Research Handbook on Transparency (Edward Elgar, 2014), pp. 343–67Google Scholar, at 343.

18 Marks, n. 11 above, p. 998.

19 See generally Lodge, M., ‘Accountability and Transparency in Regulation: Critiques, Doctrines and Instruments’, in Jordana, J. & Levi-Faur, D. (eds), The Politics of Regulation: Institutions and Regulatory Reforms for the Age of Governance (Edward Elgar, 2004), pp. 124–44Google Scholar.

20 Casini, B. Kingsbury & L., ‘Global Administrative Law Dimensions of International Organizations Law’ (2009) 6(2) International Organizations Law Review, pp. 319–58Google Scholar, at 325 (emphasis in original).

21 Fisher, E., ‘Transparency and Administrative Law: A Critical Evaluation’ (2010) 63(1) Current Legal Problems, pp. 272–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 275–6; see also Donaldson, M. & Kingsbury, B., ‘The Adoption of Transparency Policies in Global Governance Institutions: Justifications, Effects, and Implications’ (2013) 9 Annual Review of Law and Social Science, pp. 119–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 122–4.

22 Florini, A., ‘Introduction: The Battle Over Transparency’, in Florini, A. (ed.), The Right to Know: Transparency for an Open World (Columbia University Press, 2007), pp. 1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 1.

23 Bovens, M., ‘Analysing and Assessing Accountability: A Conceptual Framework’ (2007) 13(4) European Law Journal, pp. 447–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 450.

24 Esty, D., ‘Good Governance at the Supranational Level: Globalizing Administrative Law’ (2005–6) 115(7) Yale Law Journal, pp. 1490–562CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 1530–1.

25 Gupta, A. & Mason, M., ‘Disclosing or Obscuring? The Politics of Transparency in Global Climate Governance’ (2016) 18 Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, pp. 82–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 83.

26 Ibid.

27 See, e.g., Gupta & van Asselt, n. 12 above; Ciplet, D. et al. , ‘The Transformative Capability of Transparency in Global Environmental Governance’ (2018) 18(3) Global Environmental Politics, pp. 130–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 136–7; Fox, J., ‘The Uncertain Relationship between Transparency and Accountability’ (2007) 17(4) Development in Practice, pp. 663–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 664.

28 See, e.g., Kingsbury, B., Krisch, N. & Stewart, R.B., ‘The Emergence of Global Administrative Law’ (2005) 68(3&4) Law and Contemporary Problems, pp. 15–61Google Scholar, at 17; Krisch, N. & Kingsbury, B., ‘Introduction: Global Governance and Global Administrative Law in the International Legal Order’ (2006) 17(1) European Journal of International Law, pp. 1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and the other articles in the Symposium issue of European Journal of International Law, pp. 1–278; Cassese, S. (ed.), Research Handbook on Global Administrative Law (Edward Elgar, 2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

29 See, e.g., Keohane, R.W. Grant & R.O., ‘Accountability and Abuses of Power in World Politics’ (2005) 99(1) American Political Science Review, pp. 29–43Google Scholar, at 36; Mashaw, J.L., ‘Structuring a “Dense Complexity”: Accountability and the Project of Administrative Law’ (2005) 5(1) Issues in Legal Scholarship, pp. 1–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 27.

30 See, e.g., Stewart, R.B., ‘Remedying Disregard in Global Regulatory Governance: Accountability, Participation, and Responsiveness’ (2014) 108(2) American Journal of International Law, pp. 211–70Google Scholar, at 244–55; Black, J., ‘Constructing and Contesting Legitimacy and Accountability in Polycentric Regulatory Regimes’ (2008) 2(2) Regulation and Governance, pp. 137–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 150.

31 Harlow, C., ‘Accountability as a Value for Global Governance and Global Administrative Law’, in Anthony, G. et al. (eds), Values in Global Administrative Law (Hart, 2011), pp. 174–82Google Scholar.

32 Kingsbury, B., ‘Global Environmental Governance as Administration: Implications for International Law’, in Bodansky, D., Brunnée, J. & Hey, E. (eds), The Oxford Handbook of International Environmental Law (Oxford University Press, 2007), pp. 63–84Google Scholar, at 66. See also Scott, C., ‘Accountability in the Regulatory State’ (2000) 27(1) Journal of Law and Society, pp. 38–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 41–2.

33 Gupta & van Asselt, n. 12 above, p. 3.

34 Ibid.

35 Ibid.

36 Ibid., p. 5.

37 Zahar, A., ‘A Bottom-Up Compliance Mechanism for the Paris Agreement’ (2017) 1(1) Chinese Journal of Environmental Law, pp. 69–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 80.

38 I.e., a ‘soft’ facilitative version of compliance is preferred over ‘hard’ accountability: Winkler, H., Mantlana, B. & Letete, T., ‘Transparency of Action and Support in the Paris Agreement’ (2017) 17(7) Climate Policy, pp. 853–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 862.

39 Gupta & van Asselt, n. 12 above, p. 4 (Figure 1).

40 IPCC, ‘2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories’, available at: https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl.

41 Aganaba-Jeanty, n. 4 above, p. 2. See also UNFCCC Secretariat, Guidelines for the Preparation of National Communications by Parties included in Annex I to the Convention, Part I: UNFCCC Reporting Guidelines on Annual Greenhouse Gas Inventories (2014), UN Doc FCCC/CP/2013/10/Add.3, Annex I, p. 4.

42 See, e.g., Victor, D.G., Global Warming Gridlock: Creating More Effective Strategies for Protecting the Planet (Cambridge University Press, 2011), p. 230CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Oberthür, S., Production and Consumption of Ozone-Depleting Substances 1986–1999: The Data Reporting System under the Montreal Protocol (Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Technische Zusammenarbeit, 2001), pp. 11–32Google Scholar.

43 See, e.g., Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCCC, Kyoto (Japan), 11 Dec. 1997, in force 16 Feb. 2005, Art. 5(2), available at: http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.pdf.

44 The focus of this article is on satellite measurements of atmospheric concentrations and estimating fossil fuel CO2 emissions as an emerging capability, rather than the existing use of satellite imagery for land-use monitoring.

45 National Research Council of the National Academies, Verifying Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Methods to Support International Climate Agreement (The National Academies Press, 2010)Google Scholar.

46 Ibid.

47 Simnett, R., Huggins, M. Nugent & A.L., ‘Developing an International Assurance Standard on Greenhouse Gas Statements’ (2009) 23(4) Accounting Horizons, pp. 347–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 353–4.

48 J. Ellis & S. Moarif, ‘Identifying and Addressing Gaps in the UNFCCC Reporting Framework’, OECD/IEA Climate Change Expert Group Paper No. 2015(7), Nov. 2015, available at: https://www.transparency-partnership.net/sites/default/files/u2402/identifying-and-addressing-gaps.pdf.

49 Aganaba-Jeanty, n. 4 above, p. 4.

50 Levin, I. et al. , ‘The Global SF6 Source Inferred from Long-Term High Precision Atmospheric Measurements and Its Comparison with Emission Inventories’ (2010) 10(6) Atmospheric Chemistry & Physics, pp. 2655–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

51 Aganaba-Jeanty, n. 4 above, p. 4.

52 Bergamaschi, P. et al. , ‘Inverse Modelling of National and European CH4 Emissions Using the Atmospheric Zoom Model TM5’ (2005) 5 Atmospheric Chemistry & Physics, pp. 2431–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

53 Weiss, R.F. & Prinn, R.G., ‘Quantifying Greenhouse-Gas Emissions from Atmospheric Measurements: A Critical Reality Check for Climate Legislation’ (2011) 369(1943) Philosophical Transactions: Mathematical, Physical & Engineering Sciences, pp. 1925–42CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed, at 1935.

54 Zahar, A., ‘Does Self-Interest Skew State Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions? A Preliminary Analysis based on the First Verified Emissions Estimates under the Kyoto Protocol’ (2010) 1(2) Climate Law, pp. 313–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar; UNFCCC Secretariat, Decision 2/CP.1, ‘Review of First Communications from the Parties included in Annex 1 to the Convention’ (28 Mar.–7 Apr. 1995), UN Doc FCCC/CP/1995/7/Add.1, p. 7.

55 Annex B parties are those included in Annex B of the Kyoto Protocol (n. 43 above) that have agreed to a target for their GHG emissions in the first commitment period.

56 Zahar, n. 54 above, p. 319.

57 See, e.g., the Montreal compliance system discussed in J. Klabbers, ‘Compliance Procedures’, in Bodansky, Brunnée & Hey, n. 32 above, pp. 995–1009, at 996.

58 Weiss & Prinn, n. 53 above, p. 1931.

59 Hardwick & Graven, n. 1 above, p. 7.

60 Gurney, K., ‘Beyond Hammers and Nails: Mitigating and Verifying Greenhouse Gas Emissions’ (2013) 94(22) Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union, pp. 199–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

61 The GCOS is sponsored by the WMO, the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), UNEP, and the International Council for Science.

62 UNFCCC Secretariat, Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice, ‘Update on the Implementation Plan for the Global Observing System for Climate in Support of the UNFCCC’ (30 Nov.–4 Dec. 2010), UN Doc FCCC/SBSTA/2010/MISC.9, available at: https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2010/sbsta/eng/misc09.pdf.

63 WMO & UNEP, n. 5 above.

64 DeCola, P. & WMO Secretariat, ‘An Integrated Global Greenhouse Gas Information System (IG3IS)’ (2017) 66(1) WMO BulletinGoogle Scholar, available at: https://public.wmo.int/en/resources/bulletin/integrated-global-greenhouse-gas-information-system-ig3is.

65 WMO & UNEP, n. 5 above.

66 One Planet Summit, ‘Paris Declaration: “Towards a Space Climate Observatory”’, 12 Dec. 2017, p. 1, available at: https://uk.ambafrance.org/One-Planet-Summit-Towards-a-Space-Climate-Observatory.

67 International Academy of Astronautics, ‘Summit Declaration’, 18 Sept. 2015, available at: http://iaaweb.org/iaa/Scientific%20Activity/declarationmexico.pdf.

68 Declaration of New Delhi, ‘Heads of Space Agencies Decide to Join Efforts in Support of COP 21 Decisions’, May 2016, on file with first author; CNES, n. 6 above. The participating countries are Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Belorussia, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Columbia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, Estonia, Finland, France, Gabon, Germany, Greece, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Mexico, Morocco, the Netherlands, Nigeria, Norway, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, the UK, the US (NASA-NOAA-CEOS), Ukraine, Vietnam, Thailand and two institutions, the International Academy of Astronautics and the European Space Agency.

69 One Planet Summit, n. 66 above.

70 ‘World's Space Agencies Propose Setting up Climate Observatory’, Phys.org, 11 Dec. 2017, available at: https://phys.org/news/2017-12-world-space-agencies-climate-observatory.html.

71 One Planet Summit, n. 66 above, p. 2.

72 The aim is to sign a space climate observatory charter along the same lines as the International Charter on Space and Major Disasters: see, e.g., Israel, B.R., ‘Help from Above: The Role of International Law in Facilitating the Use of Outer Space for Disaster Management’, in Caron, D.D., Kelly, M.J. & Telesetsky, A. (eds), The International Law of Disaster Relief (Cambridge University Press, 2014), pp. 217–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

73 Outer Space Treaty, n. 8 above, Art. 1.

74 Ibid., Art. 2.

75 Ibid., Art. 1.

76 Ibid., Art. 9; Aganaba-Jeanty, n. 4 above, p. 10.

77 UNGA Resolution 41/65, ‘Principles relating to Remote Sensing of the Earth from Outer Space’ (3 Dec. 1986), UN Doc A/RES/41/65 (Remote Sensing Principles), available at: http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/41/a41r065.htm.

78 Implementation of these principles at the domestic level takes different forms, ranging from a focus on the satellite system, the data, the transaction or a combination of these: Gabrynowicz, J.I., The Land Remote Sensing Laws and Policies of National Governments: A Global Survey (National Center for Remote Sensing, Air, and Space Law at the University of Mississippi School of Law, 2007)Google Scholar.

79 Aganaba-Jeanty, n. 4 above, pp. 10–11. To prevent the sharing of sensitive information, individual agreements can be entered into between the satellite asset owner and the sensed state. An example of this is the Kyl-Binganam Amendment to the 1997 US National Defense Authorization Act: see National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997, § 1064, 110 Stat. 2422 (1996) (enacted); and Zerbini, A. & Fradley, M., ‘Higher Resolution Satellite Imagery of Israel and Palestine: Re-assessing the Kyl-Binganam Amendment’ (2018) (Mar.) Space Policy, pp. 1–15Google Scholar. However, such agreements are rare as they run counter to the trend of open data policies, and would occur only in strategic circumstances.

80 Onoda, M., ‘Satellite Earth Observation as “Systematic Observation” in Multilateral Environmental Treaties’ (2005) 31(2) Journal of Space Law, pp. 339–412Google Scholar; Ito, A., ‘Improvement to the Legal Regime for the Effective Use of Satellite Remote Sensing Data for Disaster Management and Protection of the Environment’ (2008) 34(1) Journal of Space Law, pp. 45–65Google Scholar, at 46.

81 Borowitz, M., Open Space: The Global Effort for Open Access to Environmental Satellite Data (The MIT Press, 2017), p. 2CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

82 GEOSS was established by the Group on Earth Observations (GEO), a unique global network connecting 105 member states, government institutions, academic and research institutions, data providers, businesses, engineers, scientists, and experts. GEOSS is a set of coordinated and independent earth observation, information, and processing systems that interact and provide access to diverse information for a broad range of users: GEO, ‘About GEOSS’, available at: https://www.earthobservations.org/geoss.php.

83 GEO, ‘GEO Data Sharing Principles Implementation’, available at: https://www.earthobservations.org/geoss_dsp.shtml.

84 World Data Centre for Greenhouse Gases, ‘List of Contributors’, available at: https://gaw.kishou.go.jp/documents/db_list/organization.

85 World Data Centre for Greenhouse Gases, ‘About WDCGG’, available at: https://gaw.kishou.go.jp/about_wdcgg/wdcgg.

86 Borowitz, n. 81 above, p. 267.

87 Government of Canada, Networks of Centres of Excellence, ‘Monitoring Greenhouse Gases from Space: LOOKNorth Accelerates Market Opportunities for Montreal Firm’, updated 22 Jun. 2017, available at: http://www.nce-rce.gc.ca/Research-Recherche/Stories-Articles/2017/MonitoringGreenhouse-SurveillerEmissions_eng.asp.

88 Rainey, n. 2 above.

89 M. Dhane, ‘Planet Labs Satellite Data is now on Google Cloud’, Geospatial World, 13 Mar. 2017, available at: https://www.geospatialworld.net/blogs/planet-labs-satellite-data-google-cloud; S. Scoles, ‘The Best Way to Transmit Satellite Data? In Trucks. Really?’, Wired, 17 May 2017, available at: https://www.wired.com/2017/05/best-way-transmit-satellite-data-trucks-really.

90 R.S. Jakhu & A.D. Kerkonian, ‘Independent Review of the Remote Sensing Space Systems Act', 17 Feb. 2017, pp. 22–3, available at: https://international.gc.ca/arms-armes/assets/pdfs/2017_review_of_remote_sensing_space_systems_act.pdf.

91 McCarthy, P. De Filippi & S., ‘Cloud Computing: Centralization and Data Sovereignty’ (2012) 3(2) European Journal for Law and TechnologyGoogle Scholar online articles, available at: http://ejlt.org/article/view/101/234.

92 Croi, W., Foeteler, F.M. & Linke, H., ‘Introducing Digital Signatures and Time-Stamps in the EO Data Processing Chain’, in Purdy, R. & Leung, D. (eds), Evidence from Earth Observation Satellites (Martinus Nijhoff, 2013), pp. 379–98Google Scholar, at 379; Aganaba-Jeanty, n. 4 above, p. 13.

93 Guzman, A.T., ‘A Compliance-based Theory of International Law’ (2002) 90(6) California Law Review, pp. 1823–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 1846, 1861.

94 Leal-Arcas & Morelli, n. 15 above. This approach has been used widely by NGOs in the field of international human rights law since 1975: see, e.g., Hafner-Burton, E.M., ‘Sticks and Stones: Naming and Shaming the Human Rights Enforcement Problem’ (2008) 62(4) International Organization, pp. 689–716CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

95 Weiss, E. Brown & Jacobson, H.K., ‘Assessing the Record and Designing Strategies to Engage Countries’, in Weiss, E. Brown & Jacobson, H.K. (eds), Engaging Countries: Strengthening Compliance with International Environmental Accords (The MIT Press, 1998), pp. 511–54Google Scholar, at 543. In a related vein, Kline and Raustiala note that remotely sensed satellite data can have a deterrent effect on states by making non-compliance observable and costly: K. Kline & K. Raustiala, ‘International Environmental Agreements and Remote Sensing Technologies’, background paper prepared for the Workshop on ‘Remote Sensing and Environmental Treaties, Building More Effective Linkages’, 4–5 Dec. 2000, Columbia University, New York (NY, US), pp. 15–6, 30, available at: http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/rs-treaties/rs-treaties_bckgnd.pdf.

96 Paris Agreement, n. 9 above, Art. 4(2).

97 van Asselt, H., ‘The Role of Non-State Actors in Reviewing Ambition, Implementation, and Compliance under the Paris Agreement’ (2016) 6(1–2) Climate Law, pp. 91–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 104–5.

98 However, there remains the risk that if large volumes of technical information on states’ progress towards their international environmental commitments are made available, yet require sophisticated expert knowledge and English language skills to interpret, the ability of some state and non-state actors to utilize this information for accountability purposes will be undermined.

99 Kyoto Protocol, n. 43 above, Art. 3(1).

100 Paris Agreement, n. 9 above, Arts 2 and 4(3).

101 Ibid., Art. 13.

102 Ibid., Art. 13(11).

103 Ibid., Art. 14.

104 Ibid., Art. 15.

105 Ibid., Art. 13(7).

106 Ibid., Art. 13(11).

107 Ibid., Art. 13(7)(a).

108 IPCC, n. 40 above.

109 IPCC, ‘2019 Refinements to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National GHG Inventories’, 2018, available at: https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/home/2019refinement.html.

110 IPCC, ‘44th Session of the IPCC: Decisions Adopted by the Panel’, 17–20 Oct. 2016, Bangkok (Thailand), p. 40, available at: http://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/p44_decisions.pdf.

111 HM Government, Department of Energy and Climate Change, ‘The UK's Second Biennial Report under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Dec. 2015, p. 25, available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/491405/UK_Second_Biennial_Report_Web_Accessible.pdf.

112 DeCola & WMO Secretariat, n. 64 above.

113 The system will consist of a suite of coordinated multi-scale, multi-type carbon observations, including aircraft, satellite, and in situ data, and a data assimilation system and distribution system: European Commission, ‘Towards a European Operational Observing System to Monitor Fossil CO2 Emissions: Final Report from the Expert Group’, Oct. 2015, p. 46, available at: http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/news_docs/CO2_report_22-10-2015.pdf.

114 Ibid., pp. 9, 46.

115 Ibid., p. 9.

116 Under Art. 13(9) Paris Agreement, n. 9 above, developed states are required to report on the financial, technology transfer, and capacity-building support they provide to developing countries. Developing countries should also report on the financial, technology transfer, and capacity-building support needed and received: ibid., Art. 13(10).

117 UNFCCC Secretariat, Decision 1/CP.21, ‘Adoption of the Paris Agreement’ (13 Dec. 2015), UN Doc. FCCC/CP/2015/10/Add.1, paras 84–85.

118 UNFCCC Secretariat, Draft Decision –/CMA.1, ‘Modalities, Procedures and Guidelines for the Transparency Framework for Action and Support Referred to in Article 13 of the Paris Agreement’ (15 Dec. 2018), UN Doc. FCCC/CP/2018/L.23, available at: https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/Informal%20Compilation_proposal%20by%20the%20President_rev.pdf.

119 Bodansky, D., ‘The Paris Climate Change Agreement: A New Hope?’ (2016) 110(2) American Journal of International Law, pp. 288–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 311; Huggins, A., Multilateral Environmental Agreements and Compliance: The Benefits of Administrative Procedures (Routledge, 2018), pp. 151–7Google Scholar.

120 Zahar, A., ‘Verifying Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Annex 1 Countries: Methods We Have and Methods We Want’ (2010) 1(3) Climate Law, pp. 409–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 413 (citing UNFCCC Secretariat, Handbook for Review of National GHG Inventories [nd], Ch. 2, pp. 11–12).

121 UNFCCC Secretariat, Decision 22/CMP.1, ‘Guidelines for Review under Article 8 of the Kyoto Protocol’ (28 Nov.–10 Dec. 2005), UN Doc. FCCC/KP/CMP/2005/8/Add.3, p. 51, at 62 para. 65.

122 Huggins, A., ‘The Desirability of Depoliticization: Compliance in the International Climate Regime’ (2015) 4(1) Transnational Environmental Law, pp. 101–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 109–10.

123 Berntsen, T., Fuglestvedt, J. & Stordal, F., ‘Reporting and Verification of Emissions and Removals of Greenhouse Gases’, in Stokke, O.S., Hovi, J. & Ulfstein, G. (eds), Implementing the Climate Regime: International Compliance (Earthscan, 2005), pp. 85–105Google Scholar, at 86.

124 Paris Agreement, n. 9 above, Art. 13(5)–(6); UNFCCC Secretariat, Draft Decision –/CMA.1, n. 118 above, para. 190(b); UNFCCC Secretariat, Draft Decision –/CMA.1, ‘Modalities and Procedures for the Effective Operation of the Committee to Facilitate Implementation and Promote Compliance Referred to in Article 15, Paragraph 2, of the Paris Agreement’ (14 Dec. 2018), UN Doc. FCCC/CP/2018/L.5, para. 22(b), available at: https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/l05_2.pdf.

125 OECD, Environment Directorate, ‘Design Options for International Assessment and Review (IAR) and International Consultations and Analysis (ICA), prepared by J. Ellis et al., OECD/IEA Climate Change Expert Group Information Paper, Doc. No. COM/ENV/EPOC/IEA/SLT(2011)4, Nov. 2011, available at: https://www.oecd.org/env/cc/49101052.pdf.

126 Aganaba-Jeanty, n. 4 above, p. 9.

127 Planet Labs Inc., ‘Planet Imagery and Archive’, available at: https://www.planet.com/products/planet-imagery.

128 European Commission, n. 113 above, p. 8.

129 For an analysis of these issues in the context of the use of satellite imagery for monitoring compliance with domestic land-clearing laws, see Bartel, R.L., ‘When the Heavenly Gaze Criminialises: Satellite Surveillance, Land Clearance Regulation and the Human-Nature Relationship (2005) 16(3) Current Issues in Criminological Justice, pp. 322–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

130 DeCola & WMO Secretariat, n. 64 above.

131 Paris Agreement, n. 9 above, Art. 14(1) and 14(3).

132 Ibid. Art. 2. On mutual answerability or accountability, see Winkler, Mantlana & Letete, n. 38 above, p. 862.

133 UNFCCC Secretariat, Draft Decisions 1/CP.23 and 3/CMA.1, ‘Proposal by the President’ (15 Dec. 2018), Annex IX, para. 38(i), available at: https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/Informal%20Compilation_proposal%20by%20the%20President_rev.pdf.

134 Paris Agreement, n. 9 above, Art. 14(1).

135 Gupta & van Asselt, n. 12 above, p. 13.

136 Such stakeholders may include space agencies, governmental bodies, international organizations, private companies, universities, and research institutes.

137 Any cooperation that results from the New Delhi Declaration is likely to be implemented by a web of memoranda of understanding (MOUs) and implementing agreements, either between states or agency-to-agency. The Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM) mission governance structure provides an interesting example of such an arrangement: see further Aganaba-Jeanty, n. 4 above, pp. 14, 16.

138 Purdy, R., ‘Using Earth Observation Technologies for Better Regulatory Compliance and Enforcement of Environmental Laws’ (2009) 22(1) Journal of Environmental Law, pp. 59–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 86.