Mapping Options for a Voluntary Peer Review of Fossil-Fuel Subsidy Reform within the G-20

The document explores the use of peer review as a 'soft law' tool to improve transparency, accountability, and mutual learning among G-20 nations regarding fossil-fuel subsidy reform (FFSR). It analyzes existing peer-review models from the OECD, APEC, and WTO, proposing three potential structures for the G-20: country-only, third-party, or hybrid reviews. The author argues that the G-20's relative informality and homogeneity make it a suitable forum for such a mechanism, provided a balance is struck between external accountability and internal trust.

• Peer review is defined as a non-adversarial, systematic examination of one State's performance by other States to help improve policy making and adopt best practices, relying on mutual trust rather than judicial punishment.
• The effectiveness of peer reviews depends on balancing two often conflicting dimensions: the exercise of power and accountability (especially to external audiences) and the development of internal learning, collegiality, and trust among peers.
• The G-20 is considered a potentially effective forum for peer review because it is relatively informal and homogeneous, consisting of the world's largest economies.
• The proposed G-20 peer review could pursue several objectives: increasing transparency of national plans, learning how to identify and quantify subsidies, publicizing reform efforts to gain credit, and creating domestic momentum for reform.
• Three primary options for establishing FFSR peer-review groups were considered: country-only voluntary reviews (groups of 2-4 countries), third-party voluntary reviews (using experts from academia or international organizations), or a hybrid of both.
• To ensure a productive review, the author suggests matching countries with similar economic circumstances, specifically noting that net energy exporters like Australia, Canada, Indonesia, Mexico, and Russia form a natural peer group.
• A comprehensive peer-review process should consist of four stages: collection of information, evaluation phase, assessment, and follow-up, with the possibility of blending formal accountability measures with informal mutual learning.
• The document recommends that G-20 peer reviews be transparent and that results be made public, at minimum through a summary report to G-20 Leaders, to ensure accountability and the sharing of lessons.
• The G-20 is encouraged to cooperate with other forums like APEC to develop complementary approaches to FFSR, such as modular reporting that can be submitted to different organizations.

APA

Gerasimchuk, I. (2013). Mapping Options for a Voluntary Peer Review of Fossil-Fuel Subsidy Reform within the G-20. International Institute for Sustainable Development. https://www.iisd.org/gsi/sites/default/files/ffs_g20_peer_review.pdf

Chicago

Gerasimchuk, Ivetta. Mapping Options for a Voluntary Peer Review of Fossil-Fuel Subsidy Reform within the G-20. International Institute for Sustainable Development, 2013. https://www.iisd.org/gsi/sites/default/files/ffs_g20_peer_review.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Gerasimchuk |first1=Ivetta |title=Mapping Options for a Voluntary Peer Review of Fossil-Fuel Subsidy Reform within the G-20 |publisher=International Institute for Sustainable Development |date=July 2013 |url=https://www.iisd.org/gsi/sites/default/files/ffs_g20_peer_review.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{gerasimchuk2013mapping, author = {Gerasimchuk, Ivetta}, title = {{Mapping Options for a Voluntary Peer Review of Fossil-Fuel Subsidy Reform within the G-20}}, institution = {International Institute for Sustainable Development}, year = {2013}, month = jul, url = {https://www.iisd.org/gsi/sites/default/files/ffs_g20_peer_review.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }