Article 6.2 allows countries to conclude bilateral and voluntary agreements on trade in carbon units. 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. Under the Paris Agreement, some of the revenue from the markets must be made available to help developing countries adapt to the effects of climate change. Whether this applies only to the centralized MDS market or to all trade, including bilateral agreements, has not yet been agreed. “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. 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. If an agreement cannot be reached, the issue will continue in December next year towards The Cop26. 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.

Last December, an agreement was close to reaching an agreement in Katowice, Poland. But since then, the assumption has grown rather than narrowed, after analyzing the number of brackets (points of disagreement) in the Carbon Brief negotiating text. In Katowice, the rest of the Paris rules were negotiated and the countries insisted that everything would be agreed. Now that Article 6 has been isolated, that pressure has dissipated. There are strong differences of opinion on how OMGE should be guaranteed in practice. 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. Perhaps the biggest concern is a system that would allow for “double counting,” meaning that emissions reductions could be blamed on the objectives of the party selling the credits and those who buy them. (Brazil`s position and the issue of double counting are explained below). 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.