COM/ENV/EPOC/IEA/SLT(2021)2
57
Conclusions
This paper analysed issues related to the possible transition of Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) activities to the Article 6.4 mechanism and the registration of new activities under the Article 6.4 mechanism. The possible transition of CDM activities was among the unresolved issues of Article 6 negotiations at COP25. The paper highlighted that a lot of work and co-ordination is needed at various decision-making levels and by multiple actors across both the Kyoto Protocol and Paris Agreement UN climate regimes before the possible transition of eligible CDM activities to the Article 6.4 mechanism can happen. Moreover, the paper outlined that significant work in relation to establishing procedures and infrastructure, as well as developing standards will also be needed to implement the Article 6.4 mechanism, including the registration of new activities. This paper also highlighted the different actors who will need to be involved in the possible transition of eligible CDM activities to the Article 6.4 mechanism (e.g. CMP, CMA, 6.4SB, CDM EB, host Party, DOEs), their roles, and the importance of co-ordinating their work to support an efficient possible transition. There will be significant inter-dependencies and interactions among these different actors and roles. The mapping of roles and responsibilities provided in this paper can help improve the co-ordination and efficiency of a possible transition, and thus reduce the time needed to implement the Article 6.4 mechanism, by ensuring that necessary steps are taken and that the mechanism operates in accordance with the provisions of the Paris Agreement and associated Decision, while minimising potential inefficiencies in the process. This is important because any time lag in implementing the new mechanism could have knock-on effects on the costs to Parties meeting current and future emission reduction commitments in their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). This could potentially also affect the ambition of future climate commitments, which many countries are currently in the process of developing. There are potential advantages and disadvantages of involving different actors in specific tasks related to the possible transition given their specific characteristics. The CMA and CMP, for instance, would not be efficient actors for implementing rules for a possible transition as they only meet once a year. In contrast, the CDM EB and the 6.4SB could meet more frequently and they could allow for more technical discussions, thus they could be more efficient actors for implementing rules for a possible transition. However, as the CDM EB and 6.4SB operate under two different UN climate regimes, their scope for cooperation is limited unless they are specifically invited or instructed to do so by their respective supreme bodies (CMP and CMA). One option to facilitate co-operation among actors across the Kyoto Protocol and Paris Agreement regimes could start at the highest level of decision making through the CMP and the CMA, e.g. with the CMA inviting eligible CDM activities to transition to the Article 6.4 mechanism by a given time, subject to certain conditions. The CMP could support this process by acknowledging the invitation from the CMA and by enabling eligible CDM activities to transition. Such decisions could facilitate co-ordination by assigning the CDM EB and 6.4SB the mandate (by their respective supreme bodies) to co-operate, so that they could adopt co-ordinated processes for the implementation of the possible transition. Host Parties would also play a key role in the possible transition, and a significant amount of co-ordination will be needed at the national level to ensure that any Host Party approval takes into account a country’s
Unclassified
