The precise approach to avoiding the use of emissions reductions by more than one country is one area of significant divergence. It is closely linked to the idea of double counting within the meaning of Article 6.2, with both questions being asked about what is considered „internal” and „outside” the scope of a country`s PNNMs, with some commitments covering only part of the economy. Decisions of the CDM Board of Directors may be blocked if at least three members of the Board of Directors oppose them. If no agreement is reached during this session, the matter will be postponed to a meeting to be held from 1 to 14 December. This highlights a reason for disagreement with Article 6.4, namely that cdM hosts did not have specific Kyoto emission reduction targets, meaning that economies cannot be „counted twice” towards more than one target. A lack of agreement on solving this problem reflects the technical challenges it poses and not the political differences on the appropriate solution, says former co-chair Kizzier. At the international climate summit in Madrid in December 2019, climate negotiators will once again attempt to finalize the Article 6 „regulatory framework” that will govern voluntary international cooperation on climate change issues, including carbon markets. In order to truly understand the task entrusted to them and the main areas of disagreement that remain, the first point of contact is the text of Article 6 of the Paris Agreement itself, presented in annotated form in the graph below. The first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol excluded forest conservation and prevented deforestation of many of the CDM`s policies, practical and ethical reasons. [70] However, CO2 emissions from deforestation account for 18-25% of all emissions[71] and cause more CO2 emissions over the next five years than all emissions from all aircraft from the Wright Brothers to at least 2025. that the call for the inclusion of forests in the CDM programmes for the second commitment period has been brought together in a large number of sectors, under the leadership of the Coalition for Rainforest Nations, which was merged under the „Forest Now” Declaration, signed by more than 300 NGOs, business leaders and policy makers. To date, there is no international agreement on whether projects to prevent deforestation or preserve forests should be initiated through separate policies and measures or whether they should be supported by the carbon market.
One of the major concerns is the enormous monitoring effort required to ensure that projects actually lead to increased carbon storage. There is also local resistance. For example, on 2 May 2008, at the Un Standing Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII), indigenous leaders from around the world protested against clean energy mechanisms, in particular the reduction of emissions from deforestation and forest degradation. If the CDM were to continue to operate without a political decision after 2020, „we are not only sacrificing leverage to improve the CDM, we are losing a significant incentive for an agreement on [carbon markets],” she said. The postponement of Cop26 due to the coronavirus pandemic has created uncertainty and created a two-year gap before the next chance to reach an agreement. At last week`s only open meeting, board members were divided on the extent of their powers over the project.