The importance and necessity of assessing climate policy was underlined by the Paris Agreement of December 2015. The Paris Agreement establishes a process in which countries promise non-binding national contributions (CNN) over a five-year cycle. The main accountability mechanism to ensure that countries meet their commitments is a variety of review procedures, including a review of implementation by individual parties (i.e., the "enhanced transparency framework" of Article 13Note 1) and a review of global efforts to achieve the long-term objectives of the agreement (i.e. the "comprehensive review" of Article 14). All of these functions are common to a kind of value judgment based on specific criteria [10]. These value judgments add a layer of complexity, as they raise the question of what criteria should be used in the evaluation of the guidelines. Should an evaluation focus on achieving the objectives or should it also take into account criteria such as "equity" or "cost-effectiveness"? And who decides what values a policy should be measured to? There are no definitive answers to these questions, as they are very context-specific: in a jurisdiction facing significant budgetary constraints, it may be appropriate to focus on the cost-effectiveness criterion, while it might be more relevant for another jurisdiction to focus on criteria such as fairness and the impact of a policy on distribution. Therefore, while the criteria for policy evaluation are on the agenda, the policy evaluation literature contains some suggestions on best practices in policy evaluation. Policy evaluation should take a very systematic approach using clear evaluation criteria [9]. In addition, political evaluation should go beyond simply assessing the achievement of objectives and whether specific policies were adapted to their socio-cultural context [12, 13] to achieve their objective (for example. B if the policy is consistent with existing standards and values; [11]). In this sense, Huitema et al. [6] argue that political evaluations should also involve some degree of reflexivity (for example.

B by questioning the objectives underlying the policy), that they should take into account the complexity of "wicked" problems such as climate change (for example. B more than one recommendation) and be participatory (for example. B by giving several stakeholders the opportunity to express their views on a policy). In addition, Schoenefeld and Jordan [14] argued that the results and results of the evaluation could vary depending on whether the political evaluations conducted by government officials themselves or more by civil society actors, such as universities, NGOs and consulting firms, could be conducted or carried out in another way, and therefore emphasize the importance of taking into account the evaluation body [14]. Mickwitz P, Poirier M. Important results for the design of environmental assessments. In: Binbaum M, Mickwitz P, Editor-in-Chief. Environmental program and policy evaluation. New avenues of evaluation; 2009. 105-12. European Union (2013). Regulation (EU) 525/2013 of the European Parliament and council of 21 May 2013 establishing a mechanism for monitoring and reporting greenhouse gas emissions and providing other relevant information at national and EU level on climate change, and repealing Decision 280/2004/EC.

[2013] JO L165/13. Schoenefeld J, Jordan A. ECB policy assessment? Towards a new typology. evaluation. 2017;23 (3):274-93. Thirdly, the EU, member state governments and other stakeholders sponsoring assessments should provide sufficient resources to cover relatively under-represented sectors, in particular UTCATF and waste. Similarly, climate auditors should, where possible, pay more attention to the involvement of these sectors in their assessments. This article confirms that there is an incongruity in the areas affected by the