Being clear helps better direct policy and allocate resources appropriately. So ECO also wants to be clear. Paris needs to improve transparency and accountability on many different fronts: mitigation and adaptation actions and means of implementation. And to be even clearer, it does not mean additional burden. And importantly, improved transparency and accountability will build trust.
Let’s start with guiding principles and rules to count emissions and preserve environmental integrity of commitments. We also need to assess the quality of information and scale of countries’actions, as well as a credible process to support compliance and effective implementation.
Of course, we’re not starting from scratch. Let’s build on the MRV experience of mitigation: measurement (collection of information domestically), reporting (provision of this information internationally), and verification (checking by independent experts).
It is critical to track whether the collective effort is enough to keep emission levels below the 1.5°C warming trajectory that we need to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. Sharing information on current or planned domestic laws, standards, or other enforceable provisions also helps identify where international cooperation, support, or capacity building might be most helpful.
Without transparency, we cannot understand country pledges, avoid double-counting of efforts, or facilitate compliance. Unless stakeholders perceive transparency provisions as fair, with continuous improvement of support, broader negotiations will stall.
The transparency system must be evolving, flexible and recognise that Parties are starting from different points and have varying levels of responsibility and capability. Flexibility can be framed in terms of scope, level and type of actions, methodological tiers, and frequency of reporting – all leading to continuous improvement. It is clear that Parties’ MRV obligations should not be less stringent than in the past or present.
Ahead of Paris, Parties can agree on the objective, scope and guiding principles, laying the foundation of an enhanced MRV regime that allows for improvement of data quality, and informs how actions and support can be scaled up over time. Middle ground options can then be made clear and detailed work programs enabled in COP decisions for elaborating and reviewing rules and guidelines. That way, we can leave Bonn with a clear direction on where we are going.