There are strong differences of opinion on how OMGE should be guaranteed in practice. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
“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. 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. 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. 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. 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.