Please use this shareable version responsibly. Consider sharing in a digital format before printing onto paper.
Hybrid workshops relating to Article 6.2 and Article 6.4 of the Paris Agreement
The Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice at its sixtieth session (SBSTA 60) requested the secretariat to organize:
Hybrid workshop on “Guidance on cooperative approaches referred to in Article 6, paragraph 2, of the Paris Agreement and referred to in decision 2/CMA.3” to facilitate consideration of the draft text on matters related to authorization, the agreed electronic format, sequencing, application of first transfer, addressing inconsistencies, and the issues regarding registries; and
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.
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?