States’ efforts to advance the Copenhagen Accord as the basis of all future climate negotiations suffered a setback. At the Major Economies Forum meeting in Washington, India made it clear that that the first order of business would be to reduce “the huge trust deficit that prevails in the climate change negotiating community”.

On the contentious issue of “monitoring, review and verification” (MRV), India deftly turned the tables on the developed countries, stating that it was not just developing countries whose climate change actions had to be brought under the ambit of MRV.

The two-day meeting organised by the US State Department was attended by representatives of the 17 major economies, accounting for the bulk of the emissions. Most of the European environment ministers as well as India’s environment minister Jairam Ramesh were unable to attend the weekend meeting because of the flight disruption due to ash from an Icelandic volcano. The meeting was instead attended by ambassadors and senior members of the respective missions. Besides the United States, MEF includes the European Union, Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, China, India, Brazil, South Africa, South Korea.

The meeting was to discuss “issues for moving forward” after the Copenhagen climate conference. While the US wanted to make the Copenhagen Accord the basis of negotiations, the EU and Russia wanted to introduce the practice of issue-based discussions that would cut across the two tracks (Kyoto Protocol and Bali tracks) of the negotiations. At this meeting, India initiated the discussion on MRV. At the outset, Mr Ramesh, whose address was delivered in absentia, made it clear that the Copenhagen Accord could not “be a separate track for negotiations”.

The environment minister said, “I have repeatedly said that the areas of agreement reflected in the Accord must be used to bring consensus in the on-going two-track negotiating process which is the only process that has legitimacy.”

In the backdrop of the effort to deal with climate issues outside of the UNFCCC process, Mr Ramesh made it clear that India was committed to a multilateral negotiation. “The Gordian knot-cutting can well be plurilateral but ultimately negotiations must be multilateral and carried out in good faith,” Mr Ramesh said.

Given the trust deficit, India stressed that “some visible triggers” need to be “activated very soon”, this would “ensure that Cancun does not repeat Copenhagen”.

Among the triggers is the actual disbursement of the $10 b promised by the developed countries for vulnerable economies, small island states and LDCs, an agreement on REDD/REDD plus, which isnt limited to forest-basin countries and finalising the architecture of technology cooperation. Suggesting immediate action, Mr Ramesh said, “all these elements should be a part of a multilateral package in two tracks that should be delivered in Cancun.”

Reiterating India’s commitment to the two-track process, the environment minister said that “a balance in the outcomes on all elements of the LCA and KP tracks must be maintained with Annex I countries immediately taking on binding commitments for truly significant GHG reductions within their borders.”

Another intervention by India was on the issue of “equity” in the context of the carbon budget. Articulating the developing countries, India stressed that a global carbon budget should not jeopardise their development goals. Mr Ramesh said, “the global objective of restricting temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius by 2050 from mid-19th century levels must be firmly embedded in a demonstrably equitable access to atmospheric space with adequate finance and technology available to all developing countries.” India also raised the issue of the consequences of non-compliance and domestic accountability mechanism in the context of an "internationally legally-binding agreement".

On the issue of MRV, India turned the tables on the developed countries stating that the Copenhagen Accord states industrialised countries too have to be brought under MRV for emission sreduction and financing. Also that the Conference of Parties develop appropriate guidelines. Making it clear that MRV was not an issue limited mitigation action by developing countries.