This highlights a reason for disagreement with Article 6.4, namely that cdM hosts did not have specific Kyoto emission reduction targets, meaning that economies cannot be “counted twice” towards more than one target. 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. During COP-25, the parties made steady progress on a number of sensitive Article 6 issues, although they did not reach agreement on all issues. The interruption of high-level negotiations after the relative success of the technical week clearly shows that a definitive solution to Article 6 must be found at the political level. Second, Article 6.4 provides for the use of the new mechanism to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and support sustainable development. Unlike direct bilateral cooperation, this mechanism is overseen by an organization designated by the Conference of the Parties (COP). The COP will adopt the rules, procedures and procedures to be followed when implementing the Article 6.4 measures. The objective is to ensure the standard procedures followed for the design and implementation of emission reduction measures. The CDM is enshrined in the Kyoto Protocol, which still exists.
The second commitment period will run from 2013 to 2020, as agreed in the Doha amendment to the 2012 Protocol. But this amendment has not yet entered into force: it asks 144 countries to ratify it, and so far only 138 countries have done so. In the absence of the Doha amendment and agreement on a possible third commitment period, the reductions in certified emissions (i.e. emission credits) granted under the CDM are at risk of losing value. Moreover, the absence of agreement on Article 6 of the Paris Agreement means that these emission credits cannot be transferred and can retain their value under the new market mechanisms. Countries must agree on a way to ensure a “total downturn” in the market. There is, however, disagreement on the three types of market (6.2, 6.4 and 6.8) that are determined by this principle.