« 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. 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. There are strong differences of opinion on how OMGE should be guaranteed in practice. 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. If an agreement cannot be reached, the issue will continue in December next year towards The Cop26. 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. Under the Paris Agreement, some of the revenue from the markets must be made available to help developing countries adapt to the effects of climate change.
Whether this applies only to the centralized MDS market or to all trade, including bilateral agreements, has not yet been agreed. The Paris Agreement drew general political lines on the functioning of such a market, but provided a limited specificity as to its operationalization. In order to reach an agreement in Paris, many questions have been left in a certain limbo, particularly on the issue of the governance of Article 6. As a result, much remains to be done and many issues to be negotiated. 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. 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.