11 Sep Article 6 Paris Agreement Double Counting
The Paris “decision” text, also adopted at COP21, calls for the development of accounting guidelines based on the idea of “appropriate adjustments” of greenhouse gas emissions and reductions covered by each country`s NPLs – a form of double accounting. First, the parties may cooperate directly (Article 6(2)). This allows emission reduction measures to be implemented in one country and the resulting emission reductions to be transferred to another country and charged to its NPCs. This requires a transparent process and accurate accounting of the emission reductions achieved, in order to avoid emission reductions being counted more than once – for example, in the emission inventory of the country where the reduction activities are carried out, as well as in the country where the emission reductions are transferred. In addition, national and regional instruments such as the EU Emissions Trading Scheme can be combined with similar schemes in order to create a common and cross-border carbon market. Although there is no international monitoring of these cooperative activities, the Parties agreed to follow the guidance of Article 6(2) to apply this cooperative approach. Of the options proposed, the report concludes that only automatic cancellation and “updating” – effectively cancellation by the acquiring party – meet all these requirements. However, towards the end of COP24 in December, the draft text proposed a series of accounting approaches presented below, including the “multi-year cycle”, “annual”, “cumulative” and “average”, with countries choosing which method to use. The exact approach to avoid emission reductions by more than one country is an area where there are significant differences of opinion. It is closely related to the idea of double counting under Article 6.2, with both questions arising on what is considered “within” as “outside” the scope of a country`s PNPC, given that some promises cover only part of the economy. This requires a transparent process and accurate accounting of emission reductions achieved in order to avoid double counting of emission reductions, for example. B in the emission inventory of the country where the reduction activities are carried out and in the country where the resulting emission reductions are transferred.
The trades referred to in Article 6.2 are subject to “robust accounting to ensure that. the prevention of double counting”, which means that each ITMO can only be attributed to the objectives of a country`s `national contribution` (NDC or climate promises). . . .