3.1 Introduction to Article 6
|
Article 6.2 of the Paris Agreement provides guidance on cooperative approaches, enabling Parties to collaborate to achieve nationally determined contributions (NDCs) by using ITMOs. By permitting Parties to transfer mitigation outcomes, Article 6.2 directs financing towards climate action and sustainable development while maintaining NDC integrity. Key components of Article 6.2 implementation are authorization, reporting and tracking, which are foundational for establishing accountability and transparency in ITMO transfers under Article 6.2. Parties must have authorization arrangements in place to meet participation requirements under Article 6.2. Authorization can support alignment with the NDC and prevent double-counting of emission reductions. Tracking systems, managed through registries, are equally vital as they monitor ITMO transactions with precision. Reporting obligations require Parties to submit regular, structured updates to the UNFCCC on their cooperative approaches, which bolsters transparency and builds trust across the international climate framework. By preventing redundant claims on emissions reductions, these systems play a key role in safeguarding the integrity of transferred mitigation outcomes.
Parties’ progress on authorization, tracking, and reporting reveals limited global readiness to implement Article 6.2. Among the 90 Parties analyzed, only nine have both authorization and tracking arrangements in place, while seven Parties have submitted initial reports to the UNFCCC. However, 69 Parties have authorization and/or tracking arrangements in place, in progress, or under consideration, while 21 have no publicly available information for both authorization and tracking arrangements. The findings suggest significant interest in Article 6.2 implementation, while highlighting the need for clear guidance and capacity building efforts to enable Parties to achieve climate goals through Article 6.2. 3.2 Authorization Under Article 6.2 |
Parties deciding to participate in cooperative approaches through Article 6.2 must have arrangements in place for the authorization and use of ITMOs towards NDCs or for OIMPs. In order to fulfill this requirement, Parties must designate an authority or authorities to provide Article 6.2 authorization. ITMOs must be authorized through appropriate arrangements in order to be transferred. By authorizing ITMOs to be transferred, a Party is recognizing that it will not count ITMOs transferred towards its NDC. For example, authorization of an ITMO is critical to avoid counting one mitigation outcome towards the achievement of two Parties’ NDCs, or towards both an NDC and another mitigation purpose. Avoidance of double counting through corresponding adjustments is a critical component for ensuring the integrity of Article 6.2 implementation.
Sources: Information derived from partner organizations, governments, and A6IP internal consultations.*
Fifteen Parties analyzed have authorization arrangements in place, while 49 Parties are estimated to have authorization arrangements in progress or under consideration.
The majority of Parties analyzed demonstrate advancement towards Article 6.2 authorization arrangements. About 55% of Parties analyzed are estimated to have authorization arrangements in progress or under consideration, while only 17% have arrangements in place. Authorization entities were identified for 52 Parties.
Sources: Information derived from partner organizations, governments, and A6IP internal consultations.*
Sources: Information derived from partner organizations, governments, and A6IP internal consultations.*
3.3 Tracking Arrangements Under Article 6.2
Parties participating in Article 6.2 must “have” or “have access to” a registry for the purpose of tracking ITMOS. Tracking is another key safeguard to avoid double counting mitigation outcomes. Tracking arrangements such as registries can additionally serve as platforms to transfer ITMOs, potentially facilitating the ease of use of Article 6.2. Parties can develop national registries or utilize other available registries, while an international registry for ITMOs available for use by all Parties is anticipated to be released by the UNFCCC following the 29th Conference of the Parties (COP29).
Sources: Information derived from partner organizations, governments, and A6IP internal consultations.*
Nine Parties analyzed have Article 6.2 tracking arrangements in place, while 46 Parties are estimated to have tracking arrangements in progress or under consideration.
The majority of Parties analyzed have Article 6.2 tracking arrangements in progress, under consideration, or in place. About 51% of included Parties have tracking arrangements in progress or under consideration, while 10% have arrangements in place. Most Parties with an identified registry preference choose to develop or use a national registry for ITMOs, rather than use other available registries. However, the registry preferences for 54% of Parties have not been identified. It may also be the case that Parties are developing national registries that will only be used domestically. Registries for tracking ITMOs have been identified for 17 Parties.
Sources: Information derived from partner organizations, governments, and A6IP internal consultations.*
Sources: Information derived from partner organizations, governments, and A6IP internal consultations.*
3.4 Reporting under Article 6.2
Parties participating in Article 6.2 are required to report relevant information relating to their participation in cooperative approach for the purpose of transparency. Requirements include submitting an Article 6.2 initial report, updated initial reports, annual information in the form of the agreed electronic format (AEF), and regular information as part of the biennial transparency reports (BTRs). The finalization of the AEF at COP 29 would facilitate both tracking arrangements and annual information reporting processes.
Sources: UNFCCC CARP and First Biennial Transparency Reports
Seven Parties have formally submitted an Article 6.2 initial report to the UNFCCC, while one Party has additionally submitted annual information and a biennial transparency report (BTR) relevant to Article 6.
Overall, reporting on Article 6.2 remains very limited. Ghana, Guyana, Suriname, Switzerland, Thailand, and Vanuatu have submitted Article 6.2 Initial Reports, while only Guyana has submitted annual information using the draft version of the agreed electronic format (AEF) as well as including Article 6 information in its first Biennial Transparency Report (BTR).
3.5 Conclusion
Global readiness for implementing Article 6.2 remains limited. However, many Parties are considering implementation, representing various stages of development of authorization and tracking arrangements. Having arrangements in place is critical to demonstrate fulfillment of participation responsibilities under Article 6.2. Parties should establish arrangements that enable informed decisions regarding authorization that ensure high integrity, promote NDC implementation, and align with long-term goals. The Parties should also ensure that tracking arrangements can record necessary ITMOs information and effectively report necessary information as required under Article 6.2 guidance. Finally, ensuring timely and robust reporting is pivotal for promoting transparency and trust in the cooperative approach implementation. Map 4 displays the overall implementation status of Article 6.2 for each Party analyzed considering authorization, tracking, and reporting statuses. On average, the region most prepared for Article 6.2 implementation is Asia, followed closely by the Americas. Parties that have progressed most include those that have begun projects and met existing reporting requirements, including Ghana, Guyana, Japan, Suriname, Switzerland, Thailand, and Vanuatu. The outcome of COP29 may further clarify requirements, potentially including the finalization of the AEF and requirements for the Article 6.2 international registry. A strong outcome may increase and strengthen Parties’ implementation efforts.
Sources: Information derived from partner organizations, governments, and A6IP internal consultations.*
* For the purpose of evaluating the implementation status of Parties included in the A6ISR, "in place" refers to a Party that has clearly defined the arrangements for the purpose of authorization/tracking. "In progress" refers to a Party that has taken action towards developing authorization/tracking arrangements. "Under consideration" indicates a Party may be interested in authorization/tracking arrangements, but is not yet in the development stage. Designations are subject to interpretation and are based on the data collection efforts and understanding of A6IP. The A6IP Center has exercised its best effort to ensure completeness of information. Please note that the "Authority to Provide Article 6.2 Authorization” table may not capture all agencies engaging with Article 6.2 authorization.
