While some countries and private sector actors see Article 6 as the key instrument to make countries` reduction targets more ambitious, others have criticized the article for doing more harm than good, as it has loopholes that create spaces for fraud (for example. B double counting). 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. 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. Second, Article 6.4 provides for the use of the new mechanism to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and support sustainable development. Unlike direct bilateral cooperation, this mechanism is overseen by an organization designated by the Conference of the Parties (COP). The COP will adopt the rules, procedures and procedures to be followed when implementing the Article 6.4 measures. The objective is to ensure the standard procedures followed for the design and implementation of emission reduction measures. A new international climate regime will come into force on 1 January 2020 as part of the 2015 Paris Agreement, in line with detailed rules agreed at the COP24 climate summit in December 2018. If the rules of Article 6 are to be adopted, a number of overlapping and contradictory national priorities – a veritable “four-dimensional spaghetti” of red lines – must be unleashed during the UN climate talks in Madrid in December or, if not, at COP26 in Glasgow in 2020. This is a classic example of haggling that characterizes international negotiations.
But the stakes are high ahead of the tight 2020 talks, where countries will raise their current low ambitions for the two-pros of the Paris Agreement of 1.5 degrees Celsius and “well below 2 degrees Celsius.” There are strong differences of opinion on how OMGE should be guaranteed in practice. 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. The 25th Summit (COP25), held in Madrid, Spain, in December 2019, focused on adopting the remaining implementation guidelines for the Paris Agreement, which have yet to be negotiated. Above all, a point was on everyone`s lips; by earth delegates on their way to meetings and plenary sessions, secondary meetings and civil society observers chatting in the corridors: Article 6. Would the parties be able to reach an agreement on Article 6? A few days after COP25, civil society was already skeptical; Some called the article “a technical and opaque text that could make or break the Paris Agreement.” The results of the international reduction (ITMO) use a carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) metric for a new set of market provisions or other greenhouse gas mitigation outcomes, as defined in Article 6 of the Paris Agreement.