COM/ENV/EPOC/IEA/SLT(2021)2
31
4 Options for the operationalisation of Article 6.4
This section explores options to operationalise the possible transition of CDM activities to the Article 6.4 mechanism, to register new activities in the Article 6.4 mechanism, as well as the tasks and possible sequence of work of the 6.4SB and other relevant actors. For the possible transition of CDM activities, this section outlines various technical and procedural options for decision-making actors (as defined in section 2), and assesses these options against the high-level criteria described in Section 3. The paper acknowledges that there is no consensus on any of these options, and options are presented without prejudice of the outcomes of negotiations at COP26. This paper also recognises that RMP on Article 6 need to be agreed before any possible transition of eligible activities from the CDM to the Article 6.4 mechanism could happen. Any decision within the RMP on the options discussed in the following sections will be applicable for Article 6.4 activities, including transitioned CDM activities. For instance, a decision on the development of a new (or revised) accreditation standard for the Article 6.4 mechanism would be applicable to all new Article 6.4 activities, including transitioned CDM activities. Figure 1 outlines a flow chart that can help relevant actors for Article 6.4 prioritise their work, by determining whether work could usefully be started on a specific topic, such as methodology development, accreditation standards, registration procedures, or host Party criteria for participating in the Article 6.4 mechanism. This flow chart highlights that answers on whether or not to start work on a specific topic could vary between different topics (e.g. baseline methodologies, accreditation standards) as well as potentially within a given topic. For instance, the review of certain CDM baseline methodologies might lead to the conclusion that some could be used without being revised in the Article 6.4 mechanism, while others might need revision. The flow chart could therefore also help find a pragmatic way forward on selected issues, by assessing the implications of not undertaking the work.21
21
NB – it may be more difficult to agree the way forward on issues that are subjective, e.g. whether processes work well, than on issues that are objective, e.g. whether revision would take significant time/resources.
Unclassified
