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

One of the keys to this strengthened ambition lies in the implementation of Article 6 of the Paris Agreement. At COP24 in Katowice, Poland, last December, the participating countries reached an agreement on the implementation of the Paris Agreement – the so-called Paris regulation – but failed to agree on the implementation of Article 6. That is why Article 6 of the Paris Agreement was at the centre of the United Nations climate change conference in Bonn, which marked the first formal meeting of governments to advance negotiations on the absence of Paris rules. 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. 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. ”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. At the international climate summit in Madrid in December 2019, climate negotiators will once again attempt to finalize the ”regulatory framework” of Article 6 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. 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. 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.