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. 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. If the CDM were to continue to operate without a political decision after 2020, “we are not only sacrificing leverage to improve the CDM, we are losing a significant incentive for an agreement on [carbon markets],” she said. At last week`s only open meeting, board members were divided on the extent of their powers over the project. They act as individuals and do not represent their governments. There are strong differences of opinion on how OMGE should be guaranteed in practice. The three separate mechanisms – in accordance with Articles 6.2, 6.4 and 6.8 – were all part of the Paris Agreement, in recognition of 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. The postponement of Cop26 due to the coronavirus pandemic has created uncertainty and created a two-year gap before the next chance to reach an agreement. The precise approach to avoiding the use of emissions reductions by more than one country is one area of significant divergence.
It is closely linked to the idea of double counting within the meaning of Article 6.2, with both questions being asked about what is considered “internal” and “outside” the scope of a country`s PNNMs, with some commitments covering only part of the economy. This highlights a reason for disagreement with Article 6.4, namely that cdM hosts did not have specific Kyoto emission reduction targets, meaning that economies cannot be “counted twice” towards more than one target. Therefore, there is disagreement as to whether – and if so, how – the many methods to stem the Kyoto era, projects and emission credits should be included in the Article 6.4 market. “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. 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.