한국법제연구원 KLRI

Ⅰ. Background
□ To evaluate scientific, technical and socio-economic data in a comprehensive, objective and transparent way to understand risks posed by climate change caused by human activity, one established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Sponsored by the United Nations, the IPCC published its first report on climate change in 1990. At that time there was not enough scientific evidence to suggest that human activity affects the climate of the planet. Nevertheless, the Framework Convention on Climate Change was adopted in 1992 at Rio to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions to a level that would prevent the effects of human activities on climate. Subsequently, in 1995, the IPCC said in its second report that facts suggest that human activity influences visibly on the global climate. Two years later, in December 1997, more than 160 countries adopted the Kyoto Protocol to reduce emissions of greenhouse gas that could contribute to climate change. Since that date, many initiatives have been developed to reduce sources of air pollution.
□ To ensure that mitigation of greenhouse gases succeeds, control means have been developed: measurement, reporting and verification (MRV) of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Nonetheless, these control means have posed another problem: how to efficiently and globally proceed to MRV of GHG?
○ An efficient and global answer has been primarily given by international treaties. Furthermore, it has been completed at the European level and finally implemented in France.

Ⅱ. Current Legal System and Its Problems
□ A systematic analysis of European laws and its French implementations has been tried.
○ This methodology appeared necessary because there is often a gap between European law and Member State' implementation (particularly concerning Directives) which has to be taken in account.
○ Moreover Member States are able to decide about How to implement European legislation in certain limit.
□ The study first revealed a very specific system based upon Emission Limit Values (ELV) of GHG emissions. Nevertheless, it appeared that the system has been then complicated with the creation of the European Union Emissions Trading System (EU ETS).
○ Indeed, MRV of GHG emissions are fairly different depending on their belonging to ELV system or EU Emission Trading System.

Ⅲ. Main contents
□ The French MRV Process
○ The research follows the MRV process, step by step. It starts with a general presentation of gases concerned and a general explanation of the legal European Framework. Then, the research distinguishes between measurement, reporting and verification in order to understand the specificity of each step. Finally, a brief deion of National authorities involved in the process is given.
□ Interaction Between ELV System and EU Emission Trading System
○ The research tries to make the difference, when it appears necessary, between ELV system and EU ETS. Indeed, depending on the aformentioned systems, MRV can be fairly different.

Ⅳ. Expected effects
□ This is the first study to distinguish between the system of emissions limits value and the EU ETS in the French MRV process. Indeed, this process is usually only studied through the EU ETS although the ELV system is older and targets, moreover, 60% of GHG emissions.
□ The beginning of a reflection about a better integration of other GHG emitters in the whole MRV process (Local Authorities, corporations etc.).
□ Awareness of certain defaults in evaluation of GHG emissions (E.g. nuclear plants: evaluations of GHG emissions are usually based upon the only functioning of nuclear plants and do not include GHG emissions of building, maintenance, dismantlement, etc. of nuclear plants).

Introduction 11

I - Measurement of greenhouse gases 27
1 - Activities concerned with the entire MRV process 27
2 - Activities concerned by the only obligation of measurement 45

Ⅱ - Reporting of greenhouse gases 53
1 - Classified facilities 53
2 - Aircraft operators 55

Ⅲ - Verification of greenhouse gases 67
1 - Self-monitoring 67
2 - Verification by accredited verifiers 68
3 - Control by State authorities 83

Ⅳ - National balance 87

Conclusion 93
Annex 95
Table of relevant provisions 103
Bibliography 107