As a student interested in the global carbon markets, I was eager to sit in on Article 6 negotiations at COP29 this year. My expectations, however, were low. Progress on Article 6 has been slow in the last couple years, and the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) for climate finance was deemed a higher priority this year. It was therefore surprising when the parties confirmed a key agreement on the operationalization of Article 6.4 of the Paris Agreement during the opening plenary.

Article 6 outlines a system for nations to trade emissions reductions and count these towards their nationally determined contributions (NDCs), a system with roots in the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism. UNFCCC negotiators have spent years developing a rulebook for how to operationalize this system. In particular, Articles 6.2, 6.4, and 6.8 have been the major points of discussion. The agreement reached on the first day of COP29 clarified how emissions reductions from one country may be certified as a tradable carbon credit, removing a major barrier to the implementation of this system.

With this early progress, I was eager to sit in on negotiations. I first sat in on a working session on Article 6.8, which covers non-market actions that facilitate shared emissions reductions. In this session, delegates from Bolivia, Burundi, India, and Japan presented on how their countries are engaging in actions that could be used to model future projects under Article 6.8. Notably, Bolivia emphasized its engagement in Mother Earth centric actions, which join climate change with sustainable development and poverty eradication. These Mother Earth centric actions would later become a topic of discussion in Article 6.8 negotiations, in which many developing countries (including Bolivia) advocated for the inclusion of these methods in the text. It was interesting to see this strategic move by Bolivia, using the working session to add nuance to its negotiating position in later sessions.

Articles 6.2 and 6.4, which outline the core principles for emissions trading, faced an uphill battle throughout the week. Because of the early progress on Article 6.4, the negotiators moved forward at an ambitious pace. Unfortunately, this pace may have been a bit too brisk.

In one meeting on Article 6.2, delegates noted that they had not had sufficient time to read the draft text before the meeting. The meeting was adjourned so that delegations could spend time developing their positions, but not before several delegates took the floor to individually declare their dissatisfaction. The Co-Facilitator of the meeting steadfastly reminded negotiators that each minute they took the floor to lament about their lack of time was another minute lost.

While it is ironic for delegates to use precious time to complain about a lack of time, it makes sense given the hurry-up-and-wait style of these negotiations. Due to scheduling, negotiations are rarely allowed to extend past their allotted time slot. After each block, negotiators wait to receive draft text, and then often wait to review this text with the head of their delegation.

The resolution of the Article 6 rulebook would have major global effects. Aside from operationalizing a useful tool in helping countries meet their NDCs, the rulebook would provide clarity and stability to private actors that participate in the voluntary carbon markets. This is because the clear rules on credit measurement, reporting, and certification would provide a quality baseline for the private sector, which currently exchanges carbon credits in an unregulated environment (despite significant help from organizations like the ICVCM). The voluntary carbon markets would not be bound to the rules of Article 6, but would instead have the opportunity to model themselves after this system to promote integrity and consistency.

With the negotiators motivated yet pressed for time, I’m cautiously optimistic that there could be an agreement during this COP. This one may be a buzzer beater!