Suchergebnisse

Over the past two decades, the emergence of multiple carbon market segments has led to fragmentation of governance of international carbon markets. International baseline-and-credit systems for greenhouse gas mitigation have been repeatedly expected to wither away, but show significant resilience. Still, Parties to the Paris Agreement have struggled to finalize rules for market-based cooperation under Article 6, which are still being negotiated. Generally, there is tension between international top-down and bottom-up governance. The former was pioneered through the Clean Development Mechanism under the Kyoto Protocol and is likely to be utilized for the Article 6.4 mechanism, while the latter was used for the first track of Joint Implementation and will be applied for Article 6.2. Voluntary carbon markets governed bottom-up and outside the Kyoto Protocol by private institutions have recently gained importance by offering complementary project types and methodological approaches. The clear intention of some Parties to use market-based cooperation in order to reach their nationally determined contributions to the Paris Agreement have led to an ongoing process of navigating the alignment of these fragmented carbon market instruments with the implementation of nationally determined contributions and Paris Agreement's governance architecture. We discuss emerging features of international carbon market governance in the public and private domain, including political and technical issues. Fragmented governance is characterized by different degrees of transparency, centralization, and scales. We assess the crunch issues in the Article 6 negotiations through the lens of these governance features and their effectiveness, focusing on governance principles and their operationalization to ensure environmental integrity and avoid double counting.

This project aimed to deliver a contribution to the discussions about Article 6 of the Paris Agreement under the UNFCCC. The report is intended to show the interrelationships and backgrounds in individual questions concerning the design of cooperative approaches under Article 6 and thus contributes to informed decision-making. Selected design options are elaborated and presented by the authors as examples. This report does not represent a position of the German government. The responsibility for the content of this publication lies with the authors.

Dieses Projekt hatte zum Ziel einen Beitrag zu den Diskussionen um Artikel 6 des Pariser Abkommens unter der Klimarahmenkonvention der Vereinten Nationen beizusteuern. Der Bericht zielt darauf ab die Zusammenhänge und Hintergründe in einzelnen Fragestellungen zur Ausgestaltung von kooperativen Ansätzen unter Artikel 6 aufzuzeigen und so zu fundierten Entscheidungen beizutragen. Ausgewählte Gestaltungsoptionen werden von den Autorinnen und Autoren exemplarisch herausgearbeitet und vorgestellt. Diese Veröffentlichung stellt keine Position der deutschen Bundesregierung dar. Die Verantwortung für den Inhalt dieser Veröffentlichung liegt bei den Autorinnen und Autoren.

This report summarizes key lessons learned from the Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and Joint Implementation (JI) for the new Article 6.4 mechanism of the Paris Agreement. The report first provides an overview of the issuance and use of carbon credits under these mechanisms. This is followed by an assessment of what elements of the existing mechanisms could be transferred to the Article 6.4 mechanism. Some provisions from the CDM can be transferred with only minor adjustments as they are the result of substantial refinement and overhaul. This includes the rules and regulations for the project cycle, accreditation of auditors, validation and verification, provisions to ensure transparency and the governance structure. However, in other areas, Article 6.4 rules should be strengthened compared to the CDM and JI, mainly with regard to demonstrating additionality, quantifying emission reductions, addressing non-permanence and social and environmental safeguards. Based on the experiences with CDM and JI, we recommend that mitigation activities under the Article 6.4 mechanism should be considered 'high-hanging fruits', enhance ambition, have a high likelihood of additionality, provide co-benefits for other sustainable development targets, and ensure that emission reductions can be reasonably attributable to the mitigation activity.

This study assesses whether existing international carbon market methodologies for determination of additionality and baselines and monitoring, particularly those from the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), can be adjusted to transition to the Article 6.4 mechanism. We highlight the necessity of drawing from the experiences of the Kyoto Protocol. CDM methodologies need to be modified to align with the more rigorous requirements of Article 6.4 of the Paris Agreement. Reaching consensus among Article 6.4 Supervisory Body (SB) members on developing a methodology guidance has been challenging and shows that there is a wide range of interpretation of the Article 6.4 methodology requirements. On this basis, we discuss different options to operationalise the Article 6.4 methodology requirements and focus on the option to develop overarching methodological tools that can be applied to make CDM methodologies "Article 6.4 proof". We illustrate this approach by applying it to two CDM methodologies, ACM0005 ("Increasing the blend in cement production") and ACM0006 ("Electricity and heat generation from biomass"). For these methodologies, we propose specific adjustments to ensure alignment with Article 6.4 requirements, particularly regarding additionality determination, avoidance of lock-in of emissions, quantification of emission reductions and monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV).

A transition to sustainable development and net-zero greenhouse gas emissions is key to achieve the temperature limits established by the Paris Agreement (PA) and the global sustainable development goals (SDGs) agreed in the 2030 Agenda. To explore how carbon market approaches under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement can contribute to the transformational change required by these global agreements, the German Environment Agency (UBA) has commissioned UNEP DTU Partnership in collaboration with Perspectives Climate Research and First Climate to carry out this research project. The project aims to generate insights and recommendations for how to design and implement Article 6 rules and activities to promote transformational change (TC) through carbon markets. Based on insights from a literature review and expert interviews, the authors propose a definition of transformational change with four characteristics particularly relevant to Article 6 objectives, namely 'Digitalisation', 'Private sector and Governments', 'Carbon pricing' and 'Dynamic baselines'. In the context of Article 6 negotiations up to COP26 in Glasgow and an overview of Article 6 piloting efforts, conceptual options are presented for Article 6 activities to promote transformational change. An incentive structure for carbon markets to promote Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) ambition raising, and transformational impact is introduced. Insights from a comparative case study analysis of different NDCs and sectors in Costa Rica, Morocco and Pakistan demonstrate how transformational impact can be designed and assessed at Article 6 activity level. Findings are used to identify implications for Article 6 design so that activities enhance their transformational impact. For instance, higher prices for internationally transferred mitigation outcomes (ITMOs) with transformational impact can enable the political will in host countries to undertake deep mitigation opportunities while achieving cost-efficient emission reductions with domestic means. Key conclusions and recommendations are that core carbon market principles such as of additionality and baselines-setting can be reinterpreted in order to promote transformational change aligned with the global 1.5°C temperature goal.