Hybrid workshops relating to Article 6.2 and Article 6.4 of the Paris Agreement
- Hybrid workshop on “Rules, modalities and procedures for the mechanism established by Article 6, paragraph 4, of the Paris Agreement and referred to in decision 3/CMA.3” to facilitate consideration of the draft text on matters related to authorization, and the mechanism registry.
Documents:
Agenda and workshop documents
| DAY 1 |
Documents and presentations |
|
Session 1: Authorization (A6.2) – Scope - 1 vs 3
Experts from Parties are invited to present and express views on chapter II.A of the 6.2 draft text
Guiding Questions
- Is “authorization” used in decision 2/CMA.3 consistently to refer to the same process/element (cooperative approach, use of ITMOs, entities) or differently to refer to different processes/elements?
- Is it sufficient that “all authorizations” (cooperative approach, use of ITMOs, entities) are provided in a single document/process or at different times and if so how would be appropriate to sequence the authorization of different elements?
|
Secretariat resource document
Presentations by:
|
|
Session 2: Authorization (A6.2) – Content and format
Experts from Parties are invited to present and express views on chapter II.B, C and E of the 6.2 draft text
Guiding Questions
- Should the content of the ‘copy of the authorization’ be (a) standardized mandatory form (b) standardized optional form and (c) no form/free-form?
- How to avoid duplication of information and conflicting data in authorizations provided through various reporting instruments?
|
Secretariat resource document
Presentations by:
|
|
Session 3: The Agreed Electronic Format (A6.2) (Authorizations) (Table 2 & the Action of Authorization)
Experts from Parties are invited to present and express views on chapter IV.B and tables 2 and 3 of the annex of the 6.2 draft text
Guiding Questions
- How do Parties view the difference, if any, between the information on authorizations in table 2 and the action of authorization reported in table 3?
- Is it useful if the CARP contained a repository of all ‘copies of authorizations’ and make them publicly available?
|
Secretariat resource document
Presentations by:
|
|
Session 4: Application of first transfer (A6.2)
Experts from Parties are invited to present and express views on chapter III.A and B of the 6.2 draft text
Guiding Questions
- Does Article 6.2 require all ITMOs need to be authorised for use towards achievement of NDC? If not, can ITMOs which are not authorized for NDC be internationally transferred?
- If ITMOs are only authorised for IMP or OP (decision 2/CMA.3, annex, para 1(f)) are internationally transferred, should the first transfer always be triggered in the case of an international transfer?
- If not, how should a first transferring Party be notified of the first transfer when trigger for first transfer for IMP or OP is use or the cancellation of the mitigation outcome occurring in another Party’s registry?
- Shall the transfer of an ITMO to the Adaptation Fund trigger the first transfer? Who reports the actions (AEF) of the Adaptation Fund?
|
Secretariat resource document
Presentations by:
|
| DAY 2 |
Documents and presentations |
|
Session 5: The Agreed Electronic Format (A6.2) (Actions)
Experts from Parties are invited to participate in a working example, led by the secretariat, on the completion of table 3
Worked examples
- How international transfers are recorded in corresponding AEFs (and consistency checked)
- How ITMOs authorized for IMP or OP are recorded “end-of-life”
- How actions in a year change the holdings
|
Secretariat resource document:
|
|
Session 6: The Agreed Electronic Format (A6.2) (Actions)
Experts from Parties are invited to present and express views on chapter IV.B and table 3 of the annex of the 6.2 draft text
Guiding Questions
- What information on actions included in paragraph 20, annex, 2/CMA.3 are needed to perform the consistency check of those actions between AEFs of participating Parties?
- What other information about ITMOs needs to be recorded against each action in Table 3? Should this information be mandatory or voluntary?
- Which actions and sub-actions as listed in chapter IV.B should be report in the AEF?
|
Presentations by:
|
|
Session 7: Sequencing - Addressing inconsistencies
Experts from Parties are invited to present and express views on chapters IV, VII and VIII of the 6.2 draft text
Guiding Questions
- Should the submission of an AEF have any constraint based on the state of the submission and review of the initial and updated initial reports of the submitting Party?
- How should the different types of inconsistencies be tagged? When should inconsistencies identified during the consistency check procedure be made publicly available?
- Should further actions on ITMOs be prevented depending on the output of consistency checks? If so, which should be the scope of this restriction?
- Should the Article 6 TERT refer to inconsistencies as different degrees, e.g., significant or persistent inconsistencies?
|
Secretariat resource document
Presentations by:
|
|
Session 8: The Agreed Electronic Format (A6.2) (Holdings – Authorised Entities – SOP/OMGE)
Experts from Parties are invited to present and express views on tables 4, 5 and 6 of the annex of the 6.2 draft text
Guiding Questions
- What information on holdings of ITMOs has to be reported in the AEF?
- Should authorized entities be reported in a separate table in the AEF? If so, which information about the entities should be reported?
- Should SOP and OMGE aggregated information be reported in the AEF? If so, which information?
|
Presentations by:
|
| DAY 3 |
Documents and presentations |
|
Session 9: Authorization (A6.4 + 6.2) Timing and Revocation
Experts from Parties are invited to present and express views on chapter I of the 6.4 draft text and chapter II.D of the 6.2 draft text
Guiding Questions
- Can authorization of A6.4ERs be provided after issuance to turn an MCU into and AER? If yes, up to what point in the life cycle can the authorization be provided?
- How to address OMGE and SOP when authorization is provided post issuance?
- Should the authorization of ITMOs (6.2 and 6.4(AERs)) be revokable by the first transferring/host Party? If yes, up to what point in the life-cycle and under what circumstances?
|
Secretariat resource document
Presentations by:
|
|
Session 10: Issues regarding registries (A6.2)
Experts from Parties are invited to present and express views on chapter X of the 6.2 draft text
Guiding Questions
- How do Parties view the application of “inter-registry transfers” within the interoperability provisions adopted in decision 6/CMA.4?
- Should “pulling-and-viewing” be the only option for the international registry? Does this also apply to participating Party registries?
- Should the international registry provide all the functionalities of a participating Party registry to Parties who choose to use the international registry?
|
Presentations by:
|
|
Session 11: Mechanism registry (6.4)
Experts from Parties are invited to present and express views on chapter II of the 6.4 draft text
Guiding Questions
- Can participating Party registries connect to the mechanism registry? For which purposes?
- Is the 6.4 registry a 6.2 registry for Parties that only authorized A6.4ERs or is it only an underlying registry and Parties will need a separate 6.2 registry?
- Should an extension of the PACM registry be implemented as part of the international registry for authorized A6.4ERs, what functionality will it provide?
|
Presentations by:
|