Article 6 Of The Paris Agreement

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 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. 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. Under the Paris Agreement, part of the proceeds from markets must be used to help developing countries adapt to the climate impact. The question of whether this applies only to the centralised MDS market or to all trade, including in the framework of bilateral agreements, has not yet been agreed.

Comments are closed.