Corresponding Adjustment Paris Agreement

International carbon market mechanisms are a powerful tool to support or deepen CNN`s ambitions, it is important to recognize that the development and credit of projects, programs or other activities within a CNN is subject to a number of complexities that must be addressed through sound regulation and capabilities. It is therefore reasonable to set a transition period for countries to move from simple export reporting to full adjustments to the emission reduction units implemented. While the date is the subject of political debate, the minimum period for the transition to 2025 can be set, while the deadline for approval of the full adjustment should be set at 2030. The illustration graph predicts a transitional period until 2030. 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. 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. According to the CBIE report, this language was "largely negotiated between the parties until the final phase of COP21 [in Paris]." It also appears to be at the centre of the debate on double counting, with Brazil arguing, on the basis of this provision, that host countries will not be required to make adjustments after the sale of emission credits, while the EU, among others, does not agree at all. 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 following excerpt provides a menu of options for the section 6.2 regulatory framework. The text begins with the need, in paragraph 29, for "appropriate adaptations" where the emission savings are designed to come from the scope of a host NDC ("the contracting party applies"). While stressing that Brazil is "totally opposed to double-counting when it comes to emission credits," he also argued that there should be no need for a county accommodation offset system to make appropriate adjustments to reflect the sale of credits.

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. 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. "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. Options A and B would be an exception to the fact that host countries "would not be required to make an adjustment" if you negotiate reductions outside the scope of their NDCs.

תגובות

תגובות

נשלח ב כללי