Climate governance · transparency
Facilitative, multilateral consideration of progress (FMCP)
The Paris Agreement process under which each party's progress in implementing its climate pledge is examined multilaterally, with questions and answers among parties.
Expert review openNo editor-accepted expert review yetDefinition
The facilitative, multilateral consideration of progress is the process established by Article 13.11 of the Paris Agreement for considering, in a facilitative, non-intrusive and non-punitive manner, each party's progress in implementing and achieving its nationally determined contribution. It operates alongside the technical expert review (Article 13.11's companion review of the biennial transparency report, BTR) within the enhanced transparency framework, and typically takes the form of working-group sessions at which parties present progress and respond to written and oral questions from other parties. Its outputs feed into the global stocktake.
References
Article 13.11 FMCP alongside technical expert review, BTR review types (desk, centralized, in-country), link to global stocktake
Overview
What it means
FMCP is the peer-pressure half of Paris transparency: where the technical expert review checks the data, FMCP puts each country in front of its peers to explain its trajectory. Both tracks rest on the same BTR, whose review can be conducted as a desk, centralised or in-country review.
How it is used
Conducted at UNFCCC sessions following submission of BTRs; parties submit advance questions, and the record forms part of the transparency architecture informing ambition cycles.
Why it matters
Without a compliance court, the Paris regime relies on transparency and peer scrutiny to drive implementation; FMCP is the designated arena where that scrutiny happens.
Review
Public comments appear only after editor acceptance. Draft comments stay in the review queue.
Reviewers choose the definition or an overview paragraph, leave a comment or replacement, and attach evidence or a source link.
Editors compare reviewer cards side by side. AI may help find agreement, conflicts, unsupported claims and possible source issues.
Only an editor-accepted synthesis changes the public page. Reviewer identities are shown only with consent and verification.
Submitted reviews stay private until accepted.
Loading verified endorsements… Endorsements are not votes and never determine publication.
Endorse this definition
Endorse the exact version shown here. This is not a vote, and publication remains an editorial decision.
Review board
Comment on a specific line. Each reviewer stays separate until an editor accepts a merged draft.
Each person comments on the definition or overview in their own draft card, with role, evidence and suggested wording kept together.
AI can compare comments against the current text, flag conflicting claims, surface missing evidence and identify where reviewers agree.
An editor merges compatible suggestions into a draft change, checks sources, records disagreements and decides what can be published.