Paris Agreement Article 6.2 And 6.4
The three separate mechanisms – in accordance with Articles 6.2, 6.4 and 6.8 – have all become part of the Paris Agreement by recognising the different interests and priorities between the parties to the Agreement. These differences persist and need to be replaced again if the regulatory framework provided for in Article 6 is to be agreed. This reduction means that problems and red lines can again be exchanged, while negotiators work on an agreement within the entire Article 6 regulatory framework. There could also be attempts to link these discussions to other policy priorities at the COP, which could further complicate matters. At the International Climate Change Summit in Madrid in December 2019, climate negotiators will again try to finalise the Article 6 « rules », which will govern voluntary international cooperation in the field of climate change, including carbon markets. In order to truly understand the task they face and the main areas of the remaining divergences, the first point of contact is the text of Article 6 of the Paris Agreement itself, which is illustrated in a commented form in the graph below. A lack of consensus on how to solve this problem reflects the technical challenges it poses and not the political differences over the appropriate solution, said former co-chair Kizzier. The exact approach to avoid emission reductions by more than one country is an area where there are significant differences of opinion. It is closely related to the idea of double counting under Article 6.2, with both questions arising on what is considered « within » as « outside » the scope of a country`s PNPC, given that some promises cover only part of the economy. The issue of taking into account the emission reductions carried forward in accordance with Article 6(4) remains a major point of disagreement. Sound accounting rules are essential to ensure that emission reductions cannot be counted more than once (double counting) and that the environmental integrity of the Paris Agreement is preserved. Another sore point is the question of how to manage the quotas generated under the Kyoto Protocol and whether countries can use them under the Paris Agreement. No agreement has been reached on the introduction of fees to support adaptation measures, as was the case under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM).
In view of these and other points, the parties deferred the Article 6 decision to the Glasgow Climate Change Conference. Although Article 6.7 provides that the annual COP is to adopt « rules, modalities and procedures » for the carbon market, in accordance with Article 6.4, there are differences of opinion as to the extent of national control of its operation in relation to the UN Supervisory Board, which signs each draft or methodology. . . .
