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

QUNO Representative brings Quaker Perspective to Disaster Resiliency

QUNO Representative brings Quaker Perspective to Disaster Resiliency

QUNO NY Representative Kavita Desai had the rare opportunity to moderate a panel at the United Nations entitled “Investing in Resilience to Safeguard the Sustainable Development Goals” during a special event held on October 16, 2025, hosted by the UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR) and the UN Economic and Financial Committee.  The UNDRR event, “Towards a Risk-informed approach to Development: Financing Resilient Development Today for a Sustainable Tomorrow,” highlighted the need to increase investment in disaster protection measures such as early warning systems, community protection plans, and resilient infrastructure to safeguard progress made towards achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), a series of 17 globally agreed-upon goals that form a blueprint for sustainable peace and prosperity. As Desai noted in her opening remarks, “It is well known that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure…investing in DRR saves resources in the long-term and futureproofs development gains.”   Desai’s panel provided valuable insight on the necessity of financing resilient development, warning that progress towards the SDGs has been limited and that current investments in disaster risk and resilience account for only about 25% of actual needs in many countries. The panel noted that this funding gap emerges […]

Real Costs of the Push to Rearm in Europe and Beyond: Implications for Arms Control, Business and Human Rights, and International Law

Real Costs of the Push to Rearm in Europe and Beyond: Implications for Arms Control, Business and Human Rights, and International Law

To discuss the costs and risks of exponentially rising military spending, the Quaker United Nations Office (QUNO) Geneva, together with the American Bar Association Center for Human Rights (ABA CHR) and the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF), co-hosted a public webinar involving a panel of 5 experts from diverse fields. The event, “The Real Costs of the Push to Rearm in Europe and Beyond: Implications for Arms Control, Business and Human Rights, and International Law” explored how the rapid increase in global defence budgets affects social investment, democratic governance, and climate resilience. It was attended by a broad community, with participants from the fields of disarmament, arms control, peace-building, human rights, humanitarian law, climate change, gender equality, representing governments, international organizations, academia, civil society, and members of the general public. Setting the Scene Dr. Yvette Issar (QUNO) underscored that global military spending has reached an all-time high of 2.7 trillion USD, a figure projected to rise sharply in the coming decade. These rising figures “are not yielding greater peace, but are instead undermining our shared vision for a sustainable future.” The following guiding questions were posed at the outset of the discussion: Dr. Nan Tian (SIPRI) outlined current trends in military expenditure, describing an “exceptionally […]

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. […]