In 2015, at COP21 in Paris, 197 parties agreed to put in place a legal instrument that would govern climate change and adaptation efforts. This has been known as the Paris Agreement. These are broad targets to keep global temperature increase below 2°C, with efforts to limit warming to 1.5°C and increase countries` resilience to climate impact. It is also a question of ensuring sufficient funding to achieve these objectives. The discussion on the format and content of countries` reporting obligations under the Paris Agreement was a first casualty of these divisions. Discussions on “joint report tables” and “common tabular formats” came to a halt late Saturday night in the first week, with many countries pleading for more time to reach an agreement, and China insisted that negotiations be halted by next year, in line with “Rule 16” of the UN climate process. Discussions will resume in Bonn in June 2020. The first negotiations did not go smoothly. Initially, the parties did not provide text for consideration, partly due to differences of opinion on the inclusion of human rights texts and a just transition. “It would be easy to present this as the `end of negotiations`, as negotiations will remain a key modality for the parties to reach agreement on important issues in our future work.
However, the focus and balance of our work will evolve and implementation will be at the centre of concerns. Sue Biniaz, a key architect of the Paris Agreement, speaks to #COP25 of “What now? CoPs could be shortened due to the reduction of negotiating topics – but the topic might seem less important to COPs – citing co-2 emission reductions and coordination with other UN agreements pic.twitter.com/JnCIKPLSOI If there is no agreement by the end of COP25, the issue will be addressed at COP26 in Glasgow in December 2020. Leave the UK to take the diplomatic initiative to get it over the line. This highlights one of the reasons for a disagreement on Article 6.4, namely that the hosts of the Kyoto CDM did not have their own emission reduction targets, meaning that it was impossible to “double” savings to achieve more than one target. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was created in 1992 and ratified by 196 countries and the European Union. The aim is to develop cooperative strategies to reduce greenhouse gas concentrations in order to avoid the dangerous effects of climate change. 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. Throughout the event, emotional strength and “fundamental differences” were felt between some of the central characters in the conversations, with speakers referring to “very strong red lines,” the risk of “poison pills” in the text, and the feeling that some tried to impose “neocolonial” rules. What happened was that there was no agreement on the rules of carbon markets and the subject was postponed to COP26. The final draft potential text, which was not approved, contained loopholes that would have watered down climate change commitments, including the potential transfer of emission credits worth hundreds of millions of tonnes from the Kyoto era.
This reduction means that problems and red lines can again be exchanged, while negotiators work on an agreement within the entire Article 6 regulatory framework. There could also be attempts to link these discussions to other policy priorities at the COP, which could further complicate matters. The three separate mechanisms – in accordance with Articles 6.2, 6.4 and 6.8 – have all been part of the Paris Agreement in recognition of the different interests and priorities between the parties to the agreement. . . .