The Article 6 solution is the main item on the Cop25 agenda. But failure is a perception that the UN, co-hosts, national governments and part of civil society have traditionally tried to avoid. If things contract until 2020, you expect a runaway to emerge from Madrid. This could take the form of a “partial resolution” in which a number of points of disagreement will be agreed with a closer discussion for 2020. 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. This highlights one of the reasons for a disagreement on Article 6.4, namely that the hosts of the Kyoto CDM did not have their own emission reduction targets, meaning that it was impossible to “double” savings to achieve more than one target. An agreement was about to be reached in Katowice, Poland, last December. But since then, the presumption has broadened rather than diminished, according to the analysis of the number of square brackets (contentious points) in the Carbon Brief negotiating text. In Katowice, the rest of the Paris rules were negotiated and countries insisted that everything be agreed. Now that Article 6 has been isolated, that pressure has dissipated.
“How these rules are adopted will decide or really break the ambition of the Paris Agreement,” said Kelly Levin, senior associate at the World Resources Institute, adding that weak rules “could lead to an increase in global emissions.” Although Article 6.7 provides that the annual COP must 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 over its operation compared to the UN Supervisory Board, which signs each draft or methodology. One of the keys to this increased ambition lies in the implementation of Article 6 of the Paris Agreement. However, at COP24 held in Katowice, Poland, last December, the participating countries reached an agreement on the implementation of the Paris Agreement – the so-called Paris regulation – on the implementation of Article 6. That is why Article 6 of the Paris Agreement was at the centre of the UN Climate Change Conference in Bonn, which was the first formal meeting of governments to advance negotiations on the outstanding issues of the Paris regulatory framework. 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 was reached on the introduction of fees to support adaptation measures, as was the case under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) . . . .