05 October 2022
09:30-16:00 (CEST)

ARTICLE 6.2
•    A.6.2 Tables and outlines for reporting
•    A.6.2 Infrastructure, including the connection between mechanism registry and international registry

Technical paper on options for operationalizing the guidance on cooperative approaches
(Sections I - IV)

Presentations:

Tables and Reporting:
Japan

Infrastructure:
Singapore
Switzerland
 

6.2 Reporting

Outlines

1.    Should the outlines contain guidance on the level of information to be reported and how should such guidance be incorporated?
2.    Should Parties report on the method of tracking ITMOs for a cooperative approach and how?

Authorization

3.    Should authorizations of ITMOs towards uses be standardized and made public, and if yes, how?
4.    At what time should authorization of ITMOs towards use(s) be provided?
5.    Should an ITMO be tracked to its authorization, and if so, how?

First transfer

6.    For ITMOs authorized for NDC and OIMP, is it necessary to clarify first transfer application and how?
7.    How should a Party specify first transfer and where?

Agreed electronic format (AEF)

8.    Could the AEF accommodate for different methods for tracking ITMOs (i.e. units and accounting amounts)?
9.    If the AEF cannot be agreed this year, do any elements of the AEF need to be specified as a basis for further work?

6.2 Infrastructure

Article 6 database and the CARP

1.    What guidance is needed to the secretariat to implement the CARP with the Article 6 database?
2.    What guidance, if any, is needed for unique identifiers?
3.    Does the Article 6 database assign unique identifiers to ITMOs and how should these identifiers be used (e.g. by registry systems and the Article 6 database)?

Registries

4.    Is any further guidance needed in relation to registries and what?
5.    What are the implications from Parties choosing different tracking method(s) of ITMOs (i.e. units and accounting amounts) and should there be any guidance in that regard?
6.    If a Party registry tracks ITMOs as accounting amounts based on underlying transaction registries for cooperative approaches, how is data exchange between the registries and the Party registry supported and should this be reported in relation to its tracking arrangements?
7.    How to ensure that chain of custody is not broken when ITMOs are cancelled and re-created? How this operation could be reported internationally to avoid confusion with cancellations related to other reasons?
8.    Would technical input from a voluntary forum of registry administrators be beneficial to the work of the CMA?

International registry

9.    What ITMO tracking method, or methods, should be implemented in the international registry and can the international registry track A6.4ERs?
10.    If cooperative approaches span Party registries and the international registry in a way that data on ITMOs needs to be exchanged between the registries, how is data exchange supported?
11.    Data sovereignty: Would you accept a model of the international registry where Parties using the international registry accept full consistency of data across Party segments with shared business rules (a fully centralized registry for those Parties choosing to use it as their registry)?

07 October 2022
09:30-14:30 (CEST)

ARTICLE 6.2
•    Guidelines for reviews
•    A.6.2 Other issues (Avoidance, accounting and special circumstances)

Technical paper on options for operationalizing the guidance on cooperative approaches
(Section V)

Presentations:

Review:
New Zealand
Russia

Other issues (Emissions avoidance):
Philippines

6.2 Review

1.    In relation to the sequencing of Article 6 technical expert review (A6 TER) across different report types:

    a.    Is the same A6 TER process followed for each of the report types (i.e. same process and timeline for a review of initial report, updated initial report and regular information as annex to BTR)?
    b.    If an updated initial report is submitted on its own, does this trigger A6 TER?
    c.    Does the initial report submitted together with the BTR need to be reviewed (and completed) before the review of any regular information in the annex to BTR (i.e. two sequential reviews)?
    d.    Does the review of the initial report and updated initial report need to be completed before any transactions from the respective cooperative approach can be reported in the AEF and what would be implications?

2.    What should be considered by A6 TER teams when assessing the consistency of qualitative and quantitative information in initial report/updated initial report and regular information annex to the BTR?

3.    What information does an A6 TER team need to check for consistency between Parties to the same cooperative approach, and how would the A6 TER team do this?

4.    What should be included in the A6 TER team report to ensure any necessary follow up actions in subsequent reviews?

6.2 Other (accounting and avoidance)

1.    What recommendations SBSTA could make to the CMA in relation to the special circumstances of the least developed countries and small island developing States?

2.    What recommendations SBSTA could make to the CMA in relation to corresponding adjustments for multi-year and single-year nationally determined contributions, in a manner that ensures the avoidance of double counting?

3.    What recommendations SBSTA could make to the CMA in relation to whether internationally transferred mitigation outcomes could include emission avoidance?

4.    Could work on any of the three elements above be prioritized for later time?

04 October 2022
09:30-16:00 (CEST)

ARTICLE 6.4
•    Delivery of overall mitigation in global emissions (OMGE)
•    Operation of the mechanism registry
•    Reporting by host Parties
•    Use of certified emission reductions towards first or updated nationally determined contributions

Technical paper on processes necessary for the delivery of overall mitigation in global emissions
 

Technical paper on operations of the registry for the mechanism established by Article 6, paragraph 4 of the Paris Agreement
 

Technical paper on reporting by host Parties on their Article 6, paragraph 4, activities, and the Article 6, paragraph 4, emission reductions issued for the activities, while avoiding unnecessary duplication of reporting information that is already publicly available
 

Technical paper on the use of CERs towards first NDCs

Presentation:

Mechanism registry:
New Zealand

OMGE:  
•    Is any additional guidance or clarification needed for the process of delivery of OMGE?
•    Is any additional guidance or clarification needed for the reporting on cancellations for OMGE?
•    Is any additional guidance regarding the timing of cancellations for OMGE needed?
•    Is any additional guidance with regards to the type of units and/or amounts that have to, or may be, cancelled for OMGE needed?

Mechanism registry:
•    What rules, modalities and procedures (RMPs) are necessary for the operations of the Article 6.4 registry? 
•    What guidance is needed on the method of tracking A6.4ERs and their serial numbers? 
•    In what way the “connection” as per paragraph 63 of the RMPs (between the mechanism registry and the international registry) should support the transfer of A6.4ERs? 
•    Can A6.4ERs be transferred to Party registries?
•    Can entities that meet the requisite identification requirements developed by the Supervisory Body as per paragraph 63 of the RMPs transfer A6.4ERs between their holding accounts as needed?
•    How is forwarding different from first transfer as per paragraph 60 of the RMPs?
•    What is the purpose of the retirement account as per paragraph 63 of the RMPs?

Reporting by host Parties:
•    Considering the information that will be available in the A6.4 mechanism information system, are there any gaps in information publicly available about registered A6.4 activities? 
•    Considering the information that will be available in the A6.4 mechanism information system and the A6.4 mechanism registry, are there any gaps in information publicly available about A6.4ERs issued to registered A6.4 activities? 
•    Should the Supervisory Body for the A6.4 mechanism be requested to assist host Parties in completing relevant sections the initial and regular reports (6.2 requirements) relevant to the information publicly available through the A6.4 mechanism?
•    Should the Supervisory Body for the A6.4 mechanism be requested to develop a standardized format for host Parties to submit their information on their participation in the A6.4 mechanism?

Use of certified emission reductions towards first or updated Nationally determined contributions:
•    What guidance is needed for a Party to report and account for the use CERs in the structured summary of the BTR?
•    Can CERs only be transferred from the CDM registry to the A6.4 mechanism registry? What about other registries holding CERs?
•    CERs must be transferred and held in the A6.4 mechanism registry to be used for the first NDC achievement, can the transferred CERs be used for purposes other than first NDC achievement?

06 October 2022
09:30-16:00 (CEST)

ARTICLE 6.4
•    Transition of activities from the clean development mechanism to the Article 6.4 mechanism
•    Share of proceeds (SOP) to cover administrative expenses and the costs of adaptation
•    A.6.4 other issues (host party arrangement, avoidance and conservation enhancements)

Technical Paper on processes for implementation of the transition of activities from the clean development mechanism to the Article 6, paragraph 4, mechanism, in accordance with chapter XI.A of the annex to decision 3/CMA.3
 

Technical paper on the processes necessary for implementation of the share of proceeds to cover administrative expenses and the share of proceeds to assist developing country Parties that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change to meet the costs of adaptation

Presentations:

Transition:
Japan

Other issues (Emissions avoidance):
Philippines

Transition:
•    What would be the conditions for transition in terms of the crediting period and new requirements in the 6.4 RMP (e.g. long-term benefits and social impacts)?When the crediting period under 6.4 can start at the earliest? 
•    If the transitioning activity needs to apply a 6.4 methodology due to the expiry of the crediting period after Dec 2020 and before the start of the transition process (or the host Party forces to do so), what to do with these activities? How should they develop A6.4 methodologies if the methodological standards or processes under 6.4 are not ready yet?
•    How to resolve possible inconsistency of the applied CDM meth with the host Party’s methodological conditions set for the activities it hosts?
•    Is validation by a DOE required, and if yes, under what circumstances and what specific aspects of the activities need validation? How to address the absence of 6.4 DOEs?
•    Is the registration fee under 6.4 payable for transitioning CDM activities? 

SOP:
•    What should be the guiding principles for setting up the SOP structure and levels? 
•    SOP-admin: Are the fee types (the registration fee, issuance fee, renewal fee and post-registration change fee) and their structure (tiered, fixed rate, etc.) proposed in the TP agreeable?
•    SOP-adaptation: Is the modality of a periodic contribution from the remaining funds from SOP admin to the Adaptation Fund proposed in the TP agreeable? Is any CMA guidance needed to the Adaptation Fund Trustee on the monetization of A6.4ERs in its account?

07 October 2022
14:30-16:00 (CEST)

•    Updates on the status of work on the capacity building
    a. Presentation by the secretariat and 
    b. Feedback from parties

Presentation:
UNFCCC secretariat