Newsroom

Introducing the G20 Peer Reviews

7th July 2025

On 25 September 2009, the Leaders of the G20, at their annual Summit (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA), issued a joint statement committing themselves to “Rationalize and phase out over the medium term inefficient fossil fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption”.

Over the next several years, the G20 members themselves conducted an exercise in self reporting of their fossil fuel subsidies and reform commitments. Those efforts achieved limited success, with variable degrees of transparency and levels of ambition. (See the two reports by Doug Koplow from November 2010 and June 2012.) By early 2012, however, the OECD had launched its Inventory of Estimated Budgetary Support and Tax Expenditures for Fossil Fuels, which provided far more details than were available in the G20 Members’ self reports.

That the G20 should conduct voluntary peer reviews of their reform efforts was proposed by the OECD during Russia’s presidency of the G20, in 2013. The OECD had long and generally positive experiences with peer reviews, so it was a logical tool to recommend. The proposal was accepted and formally established in paragraph 94 of the G20 Leaders’ Declaration issued during their 2013 Summit (6 September 2013, St Petersburg, Russia):

“We reaffirm our commitment to rationalise and phase out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption over the medium term while being conscious of [the] necessity to provide targeted support for the poorest. We welcome the efforts underway in some G20 countries as described in the country progress reports. We welcome the development of a methodology for a voluntary peer review process and the initiation of country-owned peer reviews and we encourage broad voluntary participation in reviews as a valuable means of enhanced transparency and accountability. We ask Finance Ministers to report back by the next Summit on outcomes from the first rounds of voluntary peer reviews.”

Almost two and a half years would pass, however, before the first in-person peer review — that of China — took place, in April 2016 (Beijing), followed by that for the United States (Washington, D.C.) a month later. Subsequent peer reviews were also done in pairs: Germany and Mexico (Berlin, January 2017), and Indonesia (Jakarta, December 2017) and Italy (Rome, October 2018). During the years in which these G20 members underwent peer reviews, two of them held the rotating presidency of the G20: China (2016) and Germany (2017). 

The process of the reviews

The review process involved several steps. The first step required that two of the G20 members agree to both undergo peer reviews during the same year. Each member would then lead the review of the other. The reviewed countries would typically invite experts from G20 member economies that were also due to be reviewed in a subsequent round, as well as those who had been reviewed in a previous round. The reviewed member would then also typically invite one or more intergovernmental organisations (in addition to the OECD) to form part of the team. China, for its review, invited an expert from the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Indonesia invited experts from the World Bank, and both Indonesia and Italy invited experts from one or more experts from the International Energy Agency (IEA) as well as non-governmental organisations. The full list of participants is included in each published peer review.

The next step was for each reviewed G20 member to prepare a “self review” or “self report” setting out what support measures it provided to fossil fuel producers or consumers (usually both), identifying which of those measures it deemed to be “inefficient” according to its own interpretation of the term, and what plans it had, if any, to eliminate or reform those support measures. The OECD Secretariat, in consultation with the review team members, would then do an initial reading of those self reports and prepare a list of questions to ask during the in-person stage of the review and circulate it to the review team. Once agreement on those questions was reached among the review team, they would be sent on to the G20 member under review.

During the in-person phase of the review, which typically took place over the course of one to three days, the reviewed G20 member would bring in experts on each aspect of government support, usually from the ministry or state-owned enterprise responsible, to give brief remarks and then answer the team’s questions. Generally a more impromptu dialogue would then take place.

Following the in-person phase, the OECD Secretariat would prepare the first draft of the peer review report and then circulate it to other members of the team. After incorporating comments and revisions suggested by the team members, the Secretariat would submit the draft report to the reviewed G20 member for comments, which were usually of a technical nature. Once all parties agreed on the text, the report would be made public.

The once and future G20 peer reviews

No G20 peer reviews of fossil fuel subsidies have taken place since those for Indonesia and Italy. Argentina and Canada did announce in 2018 (during Argentina’s presidency of the G20) that they would undergo peer reviews, and France and India then shortly thereafter announced their commitment to follow suit. The reviews of Argentina and Canada were originally intended to take place in 2019, but delays pushed back the schedule. Then the Covid-19 pandemic put paid to those plans, at least for 2020 and 2021. But the review process appears to have since been abandoned, including for France and India.

The Netherlands, which is not a member of the G20 (but has been an “Invited Guest Country” under several G20 presidencies), in 2018 also volunteered to undergo a peer review similar to that of the G20 economies. That review took place in 2019, facilitated by the OECD and the IEA, and its report was published in September 2020 under the title The Netherlands’ Effort to Phase Out and Rationalise its Fossil-Fuel Subsidies.

Whether the peer reviews will be revived at some date in the future remains to be seen.

Areas of work: G20 PEER REVIEWS

Explore more

A Call for Climate Action: Protect Human Rights and Decrease Military Expending

A Call for Climate Action: Protect Human Rights and Decrease Military Expending

HICC at the Human Rights Council QUNO participated in the climate and environmental discussions held in the 60th session Human Rights Council in Geneva. Through its Human Impacts of Climate Change (HICC) programme, QUNO delivered an oral statement on the critical role of human rights in climate action. Additionally, HICC contributed to a discussion on how military activities undermine the right to a healthy environment through their toxic and hazardous impacts.  Lindsey Fielder Cook, HICC’s Representative, served as a panelist in the side event The Toxic Impact of Military Activities alongside the UN Special Rapporteur on Toxics and Human Rights, and representatives from Earthjustice, the Center for Global Nonkilling, and Dejusticia. The event discussed the findings and implications of the Special Rapporteur’s recent report on the human rights impacts of hazardous substances and waste resulting from military operations. Building on the Quakers Peace Testimony, QUNO emphasized that war is an abomination of human rights and highlighted how this report proves that military activities harm human beings and earth far beyond wartimes. Lindsey also underscored that military activities are responsible for nearly 5.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions. However, countries are not required to report these emissions into their National Determined […]

‘Deadlock of Imagination’: QUNO Invites Reflection on Approaches to Sustainable Energy Transformation at the Forum on Democracy and Climate Change

‘Deadlock of Imagination’: QUNO Invites Reflection on Approaches to Sustainable Energy Transformation at the Forum on Democracy and Climate Change

Lindsey Fielder Cook, QUNO’s Representative on the Human Impacts of Climate Change, pointed out clear pathways and criteria to achieve sustainable and equitable energy access at the Forum on Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law. In its 5th session, the Forum addressed the theme: “Democracy and Climate Change: Focusing on Solutions”, held in Geneva on the 13th and 14th of October.  Her contribution can be watched here. Joining the panel on “Interconnected Solutions to Interconnected Problems”, Lindsey emphasized that democracies prioritizing the question, “Is this best for society?” rather than “Is this best for the economy?”, are more likely to deliver a sustainable energy transition experienced as fair and effective.  In addition, energy transitions that integrate human rights-based approaches are less likely to face societal backlash. Lindsey advised asking the following questions when evaluating sustainable energy policies: Lindsey invoked the words of recently released from prison Egyptian/British human rights voice,  Alaa Abd el-Fattah, to highlight a divide in global energy transition dynamics, suggesting that we are facing a “deadlock of imagination” in the Global North and a “deadlock of possibility” in the Global South.Other panelists provided clear examples and best practices on rights-based solutions in the sectors of […]

At the Human Rights Council: Renewed Calls for Independent Human Rights Monitoring at International Borders

At the Human Rights Council: Renewed Calls for Independent Human Rights Monitoring at International Borders

At the 60th session of the Human Rights Council, attention turned once again to the urgent need for stronger human rights monitoring in migration governance. On 25 September 2025, QUNO co-hosted a side event to launch the new report of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on human rights monitoring in the context of migration and build on previous side events on this topic. Opening the discussion, Peggy Hicks (OHCHR) underlined the urgency of collective action: “We must do more, and we must do it together.” The OHCHR report on human rights monitoring highlights how migrants face serious protection gaps at borders, including pushbacks, arbitrary detention, profiling and violence. A proactive monitoring process of collecting, verifying, and analyzing information to identify and prevent human rights violations in migration are needed to prevent these violations, strengthen accountability, and uphold States’ obligations to protect the rights of all people on the move. The report makes clear that monitoring is not an end in itself. Its ultimate purpose is to document violations, identify patterns and causes, and drive systemic change. Yet access barriers, lack of independence, and insufficient resources continue to hinder effective oversight. The report’s final recommendation […]

Safeguarding Conscientious Objectors Amid Rising Militarization

Safeguarding Conscientious Objectors Amid Rising Militarization

In a world of accelerating militarization, the act of refusing to fight is bold and powerful. States justify mass conscription in the name of security and those who object are portrayed as traitors. Yet international law is clear: conscientious objection to military service is a protected human right. It is inherent in freedom of thought, conscience, and religion, enshrined in Article 18 of both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. No derogation[BM1]  (without an exception) is permitted; not in wartime, mobilization, or national emergency. Despite this clarity, violations remain widespread. Conscientious objectors are imprisoned, denied education and employment, and cut off from basic civil and social rights. At a recent Human Rights Council side event, objectors shared testimonies exposing the personal cost of standing against militarization. Their stories are not isolated, but evidence of systemic disregard for binding obligations. Rachel Brett on behalf of QUNO set out the relevant international law and stressed the importance of ensuring that this is respected in practice (full text below). She highlighted that access to recognition as conscientious objectors is especially critical during wartime, when normal provisions for release from military service are often suspended. […]

Inclusive Dialogue on Migration: Preparing for the IMRF through Connection and Collaboration

Inclusive Dialogue on Migration: Preparing for the IMRF through Connection and Collaboration

The Inclusive Dialogue on Migration was created to build understanding between States, migrants, and migrant-led organizations, and to strengthen cooperation in the governance of migration. At its heart lies a simple idea: meaningful dialogue can open the way for more inclusive, humane, and effective migration policy. The Inclusive Dialogue on Migration is not a conference series but a continuing process; a space intentionally designed to bring together those who shape migration policy and those who live its realities. It aims to level the field for dialogue, allowing diplomats, migrants, and migrant-led organizations to exchange perspectives as equals. Most recently, participants gathered in person in Geneva and online as part of the 2025 series. This event provided an opportunity to reflect collectively on shared priorities, explore how inclusion can be strengthened in global migration processes, and identify concrete ways to collaborate in the lead-up to the International Migration Review Forum, IMRF. At its core, the Dialogue seeks to strengthen understanding and trust, and to explore how inclusive participation can make migration governance more effective, fair, and grounded in human experience. Through open and respectful conversation, participants identify shared challenges and opportunities for collaboration, guided by the belief that migration policies work […]

Building the New Myanmar – QUNO hosts a public event with Myanmar’s National Unity Government

Building the New Myanmar – QUNO hosts a public event with Myanmar’s National Unity Government

When the UN General Assembly opens each September, all UN member states are invited to address the world body. For the past three years, this has not been true for Myanmar. Following the February 2021 military coup, no statement has been delivered on behalf of Myanmar because national leadership remains contested between the military and the people’s movement that opposes the military’s takeover. Each side claims to represent the people of Myanmar. On October 2, QUNO co-hosted a panel event with representatives of Myanmar’s opposition movement. Under the title, Building the New Myanmar: Democracy, Justice, and Peace for the People of Myanmar, the panel presentation provided an opportunity for UN diplomats, UN staff, and civil society partners to hear directly from representatives of Myanmar’s National Unity Government (NUG) and its National Unity Consultative Council (NUCC). Moderated by QUNO Director Sarah Clarke, the panel included Zin Mar Aung, Foreign Minister; Aung Kyaw Moe, Deputy Minister for Human Rights for the NUG; plus Z Nang Raw, a civil society representative to the NUCC. Speaking to a crowd of over 50 guests, Sarah introduced the panel, noting, “The diversity of this panel reflects the diversity of Myanmar itself. Myanmar’s diversity is one of […]