The issue of accounting for emission reductions transferred under Article 6.4 remains a major problem. The soundness of the accounting rules is essential so that emissions reductions cannot be counted more than once (double counting) and that the environmental integrity of the Paris Agreement is preserved. Another sensitive point is how to deal with quotas produced under the Kyoto Protocol and whether countries can use them under the Paris Agreement. There was no agreement on the introduction of royalties to support adaptation measures, as was the case under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). In the face of these and other disputes, the parties postponed the Article 6 decision until the Glasgow climate change conference. Article 6 of the Paris Agreement provides for the transfer of mitigation results between the parties, which could then be used to meet their NDCs – the commitments made by those countries under the agreement. At the international climate summit in Madrid in December 2019, climate negotiators will once again attempt to finalize the Article 6 “regulatory framework” that will govern voluntary international cooperation on climate change issues, including carbon markets. In order to truly understand the task entrusted to them and the main areas of disagreement that remain, the first point of contact is the text of Article 6 of the Paris Agreement itself, presented in annotated form in the graph below. “A potential compromise is to allow banking activity with a few loans before 2020, as long as we have a strong accounting system for the future, as it depends on the long-term future.

In principle, I could agree, except that the next 10 years will be important for 1.5C – and if we let in a few hundred million tonnes, you basically abandoned it. A lack of agreement on solving this problem reflects the technical challenges it poses and not the political differences on the appropriate solution, says former co-chair Kizzier. If there is no agreement by the end of COP25, the issue will be transferred to COP26 in Glasgow in December 2020, so that the UK will advance diplomatic progress to get it through. Although Article 6.7 stipulates that the annual COP adopts rules, modalities and procedures for the carbon market in accordance with Article 6.4, there is disagreement over the extent of national control over its activities and the UN supervisory body signs each draft or methodology. This reduction means that emissions and red lines can be exchanged for each other, while negotiators seek to reach agreement on the article 6 regulatory framework. There may also be attempts to link these discussions to other COP political priorities, further complicating matters. In Paris, the parties agreed on a general framework and objectives for cooperation mechanisms. It is not clear how these objectives will be achieved and how the mechanisms will be implemented. These two aspects are addressed in the current climate change negotiations, which are characterized by divergent political positions and many outstanding issues concerning technical issues, structure and design. [3] The three separate mechanisms – pursuant to Articles 6.2, 6.4 and 6.8 – were all part of the Paris Agreement, recognizing the competing interests and priorities between the contracting parties to the agreement. These differences remain and need to be reviewed if the section 6 regulatory framework is to be adopted.

“It`s hard to imagine how countries will agree on the right options and the right accounting rules and methods, when we can`t even have an agreement to eliminate those that are clearly incompatible… I mean, it`s not even a climate atmosphere, in many cases it`s common sense. In particular, most NPNs are based on one-year targets – for example, a 40% reduction in emissions by 2030 – whereas for the atmosphere, it depends on the total cumulative emissions over time.