But coalition members said the new rules don`t go far enough. They said that no CERs created before 2020 should be converted into AN ITMO and that the updated Article 6 as a whole “does not provide the clarity, robustness and integrity necessary to align international market-based approaches with the objectives of the Paris Agreement”. They said more work is needed to assess the protection of human rights in carbon markets and that the agreement does not put pressure on countries to improve corporate transparency as they strive to reduce their emissions. Countries have agreed on a 5% fee for new credits issued under Article 6.4 emissions, known as the Product Sharing Policy (SoP). However, no Pos will be charged for credits negotiated in accordance with Article 6.2. Switzerland announced six bilateral agreements at COP26 using the model of Article 6.2 and said it would voluntarily contribute $25 million to the Adaptation Fund. For example, cross-border energy integration in the Greater Mekong region has been underway for more than a decade. In September 2021, Laos signed a power purchase agreement with Vietnam for the import of 600 MW of wind power. The new Rules in Article 6 deter this type of undertaking by prohibiting any distribution of avoided emissions between two or more countries that share a single electricity generation module. Although the conclusion of the Article 6 negotiations in Glasgow is an important step in clarifying crucial details to end the double counting of loans and limit the transfer of existing loans, thus promising to improve existing mechanisms, administrative measures to put in place Article 6(2) and (4), are as follows: complex and will take time. At this early stage, it seems that those who want to adopt cooperative approaches may find it easier to adopt an approach under 6.2, which appears to be a more streamlined and less prescriptive system than 6.4. On the other hand, the possibility of increased scrutiny of an approach under Article 6.4 may reassure other Article 6 participants, in particular developing countries that do not have much experience with such operations and want to be assured that part of the proceeds will be used to finance the adjustment. It is precisely these differences between the two articles that increase the risk of creating two different international carbon markets.
26 October – The agreement on a market-based mechanism that allows countries to use international CO2 offsets to meet the targets set under the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement is one of the most complex and important tasks of the UN negotiators. “It is to be hoped that the negotiations in Glasgow will lead to a final agreement on this crucial issue,” May added. The pressure to conclude the negotiations to conclude the COP was obvious, with last-minute compromises and concessions to break the deadlock and pave the way for success. This development is warmly welcomed by the international community, with the UNFCCC noting that the Article 6 agreement “will make the Paris Agreement fully operational” and “provide security and predictability to market and non-market approaches to support mitigation measures and adaptation strategies”, which are two main pillars of collective climate action. While the focus of this article and the press as a whole was mainly on the “market side” of Article 6, it is also worth noting the dissolution of the rules related to Article 6.8 of Paris, the “non-market approaches” (MPAs). The Glasgow decision on Article 6.8 states that MPAs may include social inclusion, tax policies and measures, circular economy, blue carbon, just labour transition and the adjustment performance mechanism. The decision also states that more than one party should be involved in these approaches. However, NMAs are not “transactions” and would not be “regulated” under the rules of Article 6.2 or Mechanism 6.4. The other key issue was how to integrate the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) established by the Kyoto Protocol, which is contained in Article 6(4) of the new agreement. .
