Western Balkans cannot track climate action without appropriate monitoring

The European Commission has just announced it will drop a mechanism to monitor progress in limiting greenhouse gas emissions in the Western Balkans. The decision will make it difficult to track and manage climate goals in a region that is highly vulnerable to climate change impacts, warns Dragana Mileusnić.

Dragana Mileusnić is the energy policy coordinator for Southeast Europe at Climate Action Network (CAN) Europe.

This op-ed was first published on Euractiv on 11 July 2017.

European leaders will be meeting their Western Balkan counterparts at the annual high-level summit taking place in Trieste on Wednesday (12 July). Last year, they committed to stepping up climate action in the region, so the European Commission worked with Western Balkan countries on a mechanism to monitor progress in limiting greenhouse gas emissions.

At the summit, the leaders will take stock of progress made since last year’s meeting, when they committed to financing projects that benefit the citizens of the region, including the upgrading of the railway networks and of the insulation of people’s homes. Unfortunately, one important promise made last year has been broken: the commitment to step up climate action through the so-called Monitoring Mechanism Regulation (MMR).

Despite the endorsement of this proposal by the countries of the region and its relevancy when it comes to measuring climate action, the Commission has just announced it will drop it for very questionable reasons.

You cannot manage what you cannot measure

The Western Balkans is highly vulnerable to climate change impacts, yet little is being done on either the mitigation or the adaptation front. The price tag of climate impacts is rising each year and has surpassed €5bn in Serbia in the 2000-2014 period.

An analysis of the pledges these countries made under the Paris Agreement shows that they face serious challenges to monitor their emissions, which is a necessity to ensure informed climate policymaking. This lack of data makes their climate goals difficult to track, compare and manage with adequate policies and measures.

The leaders of the Western Balkan countries committed to improving their greenhouse gas emissions monitoring systems at their summit last year. This was to be done by the implementation of the MMR, a piece of legislation regulating the monitoring of emissions at EU level.

Since this is a highly technical task, the European Commission has put cooperation programmes in place to ensure that the Western Balkan countries get the support needed. The MMR was rightly meant to become the stepping stone of climate policy in the Energy Community, a coordinating body gathering the EU and South Eastern European leaders on the energy agenda, paving the way for integrated long-term climate and energy planning in this region.

European Commission’s internal division damages its external reputation

Responding to the needs of the countries, the Commission started working on the MMR proposal for the Energy Community early this year. However, it seems that the Commission has literally been speaking with two voices on this issue. While the Commission’s Directorate General for Climate Action (DG Clima) negotiated the MMR proposal with the Energy Community countries, DG Energy, with the backing of Commissioner Arias Cañete, announced it no longer supported this approach.

This U-turn has come very late in the process and has made the bloc come across as an unreliable partner to its immediate neighbours. It contradicts the EU leaders’ repeated strong commitments to the Paris Agreement and sends a bad signal to the Energy Community members on efforts to make their energy systems more sustainable.

Questionable arguments

The Commission mainly argues that the monitoring regulation might change once it is integrated into the Energy Union Governance. This justification is puzzling for several reasons.

Firstly, the MMR has remained unchanged within the proposed Governance Regulation and it has only been adapted to the requirements of the Paris Climate Agreement.

Secondly, neither the European Council nor the European Parliament have so far expressed interest to amend it. In our view, delaying the implementation of this monitoring mechanism will mechanically delay the overall climate policy in these countries, which is unacceptable.

The Commission also announced it will recommend that the countries look into National Energy and Climate Plans, mirroring the ones that EU member states are developing. But how are they supposed to develop such plans without the proper data provided by the MMR?

We believe it is not too late to turn things around. The Commission can put key elements of the MMR back on the table for adoption this year. Tomorrow’s meeting should send a strong political message to the region that climate action will continue.

Contact Communications


Ania Drążkiewicz
Communications Coordinator
Focus: EU climate & energy policies, UNFCCC
ania /at/
Work: +32 2894 4675
Mobile: +32 494 525 738 


Nicolas Derobert
Communications Coordinator 
Focus: fossil fuel subsidies, coal phase out
nicolas /at/ 
Work: +32 2894 4673
Mobile: +32 483 621 888

Latest Publications

  • Letter to Deputy Ambassadors on a Governance framework compatible with the Paris Agreement

    This letter was sent ahead of the COREPER meeting on 24 November 2017 Dear Deputy Ambassador, This Friday, 24 November, you will be discussing the proposed Regulation on the Governance of the Energy Union. With that in mind we are writing on behalf of our EU-wide network to highlight those aspects of the draft legislation that we consider critical to effective implementation by the EU of the Paris Agreement.
  • European and African NGO recommendations for an EU-Africa Summit that puts climate action at the forefront

    Ahead of the EU-Africa summit taking place in Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire on November 28-29, European and African NGOs working on climate change, energy and sustainable development jointly identify some important areas of cooperation to enhance European and African climate action.
  • Report: Juncker Plan backs billions in fossil fuels and carbon-heavy infrastructure

    The European Union is set to continue a funding tool that in last two years has lent billions of euros for fossil fuels projects, finds a new study from CEE Bankwatch Network, CAN Europe, Counter Balance and WWF European Policy Office.
  • Joint NGO statement on the ETS revision

    Being serious about the Paris Agreement:Stop the ETS funding coal, Start a meaningful carbon price This Agreement [...] aims to [...] making finance flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development. Paris Agreement, Article 2(1)c We, the undersigned, urgently appeal to Representatives of European Parliament, Council and the European Commission to ensure that European power and industry are put on the right track to rapidly and cost-effectively reduce their carbon emissions. The European Union was instrumental in designing the Paris Agreement. Now it must implement it. On 8th November, the aforementioned decision-makers will discuss final changes to the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) for the post-2020 period. It is vital that these changes enable the ETS to help deliver the Paris commitments. The recently published UNEP report underlines the urgency to act now in order to ensure that the 1.5°C target remains attainable [1]. One important discussion topic will be the design of the ETS funds. It is crucial that ETS funds stop subsidizing coal plants. We are glad to see that the European Parliament as well as seven Member States [2] have called for ending this misuse of funds. To reach the “well below two degrees” goal agreed at Paris, the International Energy Agency’s (IEA) modelling shows that unabated coal in Europe must fall to zero by 2030: This means that the ETS must no longer fund this obsolete and polluting technology and needs to accelerate a socially just transition instead. The second crucial topic is how to ensure a meaningful carbon price that drives decarbonisation throughout the 2020s and beyond. This can only happen if the cap on the ETS emissions continues to tighten in line with the Paris climate goals, and is adjusted downwards to account for progress. Without this change, the EU carbon market will remain on an inadequate decarbonisation trajectory and risks another decade of irrelevance, leaving the EU lagging behind on green growth and innovation. Fundamentally, the EU ETS must ensure a meaningful carbon price in line with the Paris climate goals, while at the same time stop subsidizing high-carbon intensity technologies such as coal. We count on your support. Kind regards, Carbon Market WatchCEE Bankwatch NetworkCenter for Transport and EnergyChange PartnershipClimate Action Network (CAN) EuropeEfdeN RomaniaInternational Young NaturefriendsSandbagWWF EPOYoung European Federalists11.11.11 Notes: [1] Under current trends, it is expected that in 2030 global efforts to remain on a 1.5°C pathway are 16 to 19 GtCO2 off track. UNEP (2017). The Emissions Gap Report 2017. Available here. [2] Non-paper by Denmark, France, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Sweden and the UK Joint NGO statement on the ETS revision
See All: Climate & Energy Targets