Paris Agreement Additionality

When the Bonn negotiators carry out their tasks, they will have to reconsider additionality, throw the Kyoto Protocol model overboard for good reason and adopt a more quantified and objective approach to this issue. 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. Under the CDM, additionality has become a kind of quasi-science, with bases for projects that have made it possible to carry out assessments. The UNFCCC developed a toolkit that recommended a scenario-based approach to determining additionality. But despite the effort, the analysis is largely subjective. It all depended on what the evaluator thought the future could bring, as opposed to an objective numerical approach based on specific objectives. The reason for this is that developing countries did not have targets under the Kyoto Protocol, so environmental integrity could only be assessed and not measured. The basis of this position seems to be additionality — the idea that the current emission reductions are among those that would have been produced without markets. The letter says that the concept of additionality comes from the Kyoto Protocol`s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), where Article 12.5 states that emission reductions should only be certified under the CDM if they are in addition to those that would occur without the project`s certified activity.

Although Article 6.7 provides that the annual COP must adopt “rules, modalities and procedures” for the carbon market, in accordance with Article 6.4, there are differences of opinion as to the extent of national control over its operation compared to the UN Supervisory Board, which signs each draft or methodology. There are strong differences of opinion on how the OMGE should be guaranteed in practice. If such an adaptation is made, the quantity transferred must be added in the case of the receiving part. This is due to the fact that after making the transfer, the host party must find other, probably less expensive, mitigation means in its own economy to achieve the stated goal of its NDC. This in turn means that the transferred shares took place in addition to the requirements of the PNN, so additionality can still be claimed. The quantification of systems is ideally done in CO2 units, but could even be done in clean electricity or capacity units for renewable energies. The three separate mechanisms – in accordance with Articles 6.2, 6.4 and 6.8 – have all become part of the Paris Agreement by recognising the different interests and priorities between the parties to the Agreement. These differences persist and need to be replaced again if the regulatory framework provided for in Article 6 is to be agreed. If there is no agreement by the end of COP25, the issue will be taken to COP26 in Glasgow in December 2020, so the UK will set aside diplomatic progress to get it over the line. The report states that the guarantee of “additionality” is also not sufficient to provide OMGE, especially since it should in any event be guaranteed. .

. .

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.