Measurement, reporting and verification (MRV) – how can the Copenhagen Accord deliver trust?

1. Measurement, reporting and verification (MRV) – how can the Copenhagen Accord deliver trust? IFRI seminar Paris, 29 March 2010 Baptiste Legay European Commission, DG Climate Action International relations

2. Setting the scene Mitigation of greenhouse gases emissions is necessarily a global undertaking All countries should act But mitigation action may be different for different countries – in type, magnitude and legal nature (‘soft’ or ‘hard’ norms) All countries are in a prisoner’s dilemma How to avoid ‘freeriders’? Need reassurance that other countries are acting Hence the need for each country to ensure that its actions are properly measured, reported and verified (MRV – recent acronym!) to contribute to global trust-building Provisions for MRV are necessary Could be more or less stringent – in type of actions to be performed, and legal nature of the obligation, i.e. ‘soft’ or ‘hard’ How to strike the right balance between ‘soft’ and ‘hard’ MRV norms? Need a credible system generating necessary trust But need to maintaining acceptability of the regime for all Parties Which also means a perception of equity among Parties Since 1992 Parties have been searching for this right balance – including in Copenhagen

3. 1992 – the UNFCCC sets basic principles for action Defines principle of ‘Common But Differentiated Responsibilities’ (CBDR) of Parties Distinction between developed and developing countries (Annex I & Non-Annex I) Annex I Parties take the lead by committing to adopt mitigation policies to return to earlier levels of emissions by the end of the decade Non-Annex I Parties shall develop mitigation programmes with support from Annex I Parties Differentiation in magnitude and legal nature of actions between developed and developing countries

4. 1992 – the UNFCCC sets basic MRV provisions Initial ‘MRV’ provisions: monitoring, reporting and reviewing All Parties commit to prepare emissions inventories Annually for Annex I Parties, undefined frequency for Non-Annex I Parties All Parties commit to prepare national communications Annex I Parties provide, every 3-5 years, among other detailed information on their policies and their estimated effects, and the financial support they provide No mandatory frequency for Non-Annex I Parties which report on their mitigation programmes Annex I Parties’ national communications are subject to ‘in-depth reviews’ by expert review teams This system also reflects CBDR… to some extent Monitoring/reporting: different in magnitude but same legal nature Review: only for Annex I Parties

5. 1997 – Kyoto ProtocolMRV + compliance system The Kyoto Protocol and accompanying texts Further anchor the Annex I / Non Annex I distinction Annex I Parties now commit to quantified emission reduction objectives (e.g. EU: -8% from 1990 levels in 2008-2012) Complement the inventories and national communicationssystem for Annex I Parties Introduce a strict compliancesystem with penalties for non-compliance Makes the norms for Annex I mitigation actions ‘harder’, and introduces ‘hard’ consequences to reporting of non-compliance US considers the unbalance with emerging developing countries unacceptable and refuses to ratify KP Is the ‘hard’ compliance system really helping to build trust? Too little reciprocity?

6. 2007 – the Bali Action PlanA new MRV paradigm Context – pressure for a new roadmap US accepts to take ‘comparable action’, but wants China onboard Developing countries want action and recognition of their efforts Bali Action Plan: out of the deadlock with a list of issues to negotiate « Measurable, reportable and verifiable mitigation commitments or actions by all developed country Parties, while ensuring the comparability ofefforts among them » « Nationally appropriate mitigation actions by developing country Parties, supported and enabled by technology, financing and capacity-building, in a measurable, reportable and verifiable manner » A new paradigm for MRV as the basis for trust-building MRV for developed countries – same system or not? Shift towards stronger reciprocity between MRV of developing countries’ actions and MRV of developed countries’ support ‘Contractual’ mutual accountability Grounds for a (possible) virtuous circle: norms (which remain to be defined) would be ‘equally hard’ on both sides Transparency vs. sovereignty issues

7. The run up to Copenhagen – Exploring how MRV could work Concrete questions emerge revolving around how far countries want to go and testing the limits of this new paradigm Should MRV take place at national or international level? Should MRV be the same for actions that are not supported? How to support actions without a ‘full picture’ of all actions undertaken? But aren’t emerging countries likely to act mostly without support? Can the national communications’ review system be further used as a basis for verification? US proposes a system of periodic ‘public hearings’ for all Parties, to ensure transparency and reciprocity What norms are needed and how ‘hard’ should they be? Exploring different options – but natural reflex is to ask a lot from others New paradigm may be more acceptable in principle – it fulfils the need of developing countries to be reassured that they get support and the need of developed countries to be reassured that action happens Can incentives and mutual need of transparency counterbalance sovereignty concerns and mistrust?

8. The Copenhagen Accord offers (some) clarification The Copenhagen Accord negotiated by 29 Heads of State and supported by 110+ countries says: Developing countries will report on their taken or envisaged action through national communications every 2 years Developing countries will domestically MRV their actions and include results in these national communications… …with provisions for international consultations and analysis under clearly defined guidelines that will ensure that national sovereignty is respected Supported actions will be subject to international MRV Delivery of reductions and financing by developed countries will be MRVed and ensure that accounting is rigorous, robust and transparent. How ‘hard’ is this? Can it deliver the trust we need? Still very difficult to say. More detailed guidelines still need to be developed Seems ‘harder’ than before, but still very open There will be communication of information, more often and in a more structured way, for all actions There will be international consultations and analysis (although this remains very unclear) De-links to some extent transparency of action and support

9. Acceptable and equitable norms to ensure trust is possible The norms for MRV of mitigation action and support Trust is possible in a ‘soft’ system; ‘hard’ norms don’t mean strong action Norms need to remain equitable Not be perceived as too ‘hard’ for some and too ‘soft’ for others – cf. Kyoto ‘Parallelism’ may help but has limits Norms need to be acceptable Not too ‘hard’ / intrusive – international law is based on mutual consent But Parties tend to push for ‘hard’ Parties are not ready to trust one another without ‘hard’ guarantees Starting from a distrust situation Parties have been struggling to strike the right balance And still a lot of work needed following the Copenhagen Accord to ensure the MRV system can deliver the trust we need Parties will need to accept mutually demanding norms – need peer pressure to raise the level of ambition.

10. More information on EU climate policy:http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/climat/home_en.htm Thank you