Author: Rachel Barrales

I entered COP26 with the intention of tracking Article 6 negotiations. This proved to be more difficult than anticipated as Week 2 saw restrictions in the number of observers permitted to attend the negotiation sessions, with none allowed inside the Article 6 rooms. Nonetheless, I was able to monitor the developments by tracking the changes in the new versions of the text that were released each day. Here are a few points of interest for me in the latest 6.4 text.

One of the big questions regarding Article 6 in anticipation of COP26 was what would happen with the CDM transition. 6.4 will create a new mechanism for trading project-level carbon reductions and removals. However, that then begs the question of what will happen with the dozens of methodologies, thousands of projects, and billions of credits generated under the CDM from its inception in 2005 until 2020. 6.4 dictates that credits from projects registered after 2013 are eligible to be applied towards the first round of NDCs. While that does possibly permit about 320 million credits, that is still a small portion of the total 4 billion credits that have been issued under the CDM.

In terms of CDM projects, it does appear that projects that meet a set of requirements will be able to apply and transition to the new mechanism. However, it is unclear from the current 6.4 text what those requirements will be. While it will likely take time for decisions to be made on these criteria, the possibility to transfer likely gives a lot of hope to the many project developers with CDM projects who hope to continue earning the revenue from offsets.

The transfer of methodologies is another key decision that may dictate the success of the new mechanism. My understanding is that one reason that a new mechanism is being created rather than just updating the CDM is due to some lack of trust in the CDM. Some of this mistrust may be rooted in a lack of faith in the methodologies. The success of the carbon markets is largely dependent on the confidence in the methodologies, as that is what dictates the number of credits a project is eligible to earn and to sell. 6.4 dictates that the Supervisory Board will review all of the CDM methodologies and other pertinent methodologies – which I feel may include methodologies from the voluntary carbon market – in order to determine which are eligible for application towards the new mechanism.

The Article 6.4 rule book does include several other big decisions. These include a 5% share of proceeds being placed towards adaptation and a 2% cancellation for overall mitigation of global emissions on all trades. This is significant as these cancellations are not required under Article 6.2 trades. In addition 6.4 also clarifies that corresponding adjustments are required on all trades approved by a host party. I am continuing to investigate the implications of if this rule will also apply to the voluntary carbon market.

In all, great progress was made in defining the rules to create the 6.4 mechanism. While the decisions made were not the first choice of everyone and may have not been the perfect decisions, the fact that the mechanism is moving forward is a huge win from Glasgow.

Prior to arriving in Glasgow, COPs had a shroud of mystery covering them in my eyes. Despite spending a whole semester learning the history and important moments of 25 years of the conferences, I still was unable to visualize how a COP would function on the ground. What events would be happening at any given time and who would be allowed to participate? Would the negotiations remain calm and serious or would the nations’ emotions be placed on the table with their proposals? The moment I arrived at the main entrance, I felt the mist lifting and clarity falling.

What most surprised me were the number of conferences happening in one. While I had anticipated that the negotiations would be the main event, they seemed to be only a small part of the action. Not only did the UNFCCC have official side events occurring at the same time, but the pavilion set up seemed to be in its own world. Many countries and NGOs and had pavilions set up to host speakers, meetings, and happy hours, and this section of the conference was always bustling. I had heard that the pavilions were a relatively new addition to the COPs, really getting off the ground in Paris. This apparently was intentional by the French COP president, who wanted side events occurring as a distraction or compensation in case the much anticipated deal was not met. The pavilions also provide a platform for networking and exchange of ideas between many of the world’s climate professionals.

Of course, my perspective of the COP is skewed by what I saw at the COVID COP. Perhaps the pavilions would have been less attended had observers been allowed within the negotiation rooms – a rule created due to COVID protocols, or so was the official statement. At the same time, maybe an agreement on the Paris rule book would not have been met had the negotiators been speaking in front of an audience and were not free to say what they really felt.

Another key item that surprised me were the number of protests and demonstrations that occurred within the venue. This meant that all involved were granted passes into COP and that these were likely organized in tandem with the UNFCCC. While the marches and chants were powerful and were seen by thousands of COP participants, the challenge remains that they were not necessarily seen by the negotiators themselves, who were busy in meetings at those times. This demonstrates the role COP participants need to play in sharing sentiment and proposals with the country delegations, who may otherwise be removed from the action.

Overall, it was incredibly exciting to find clarity in the COPs and to gain an understanding of what these important events look like on the ground. As I listened to several conversations on how COP26 compared to COPs past, I can’t wait until my next opportunity to attend a COP to see what changes in a hopefully post-COVID world.

I wriggled my way into the middle seat for the flight from London to Glasgow – the final leg of the 15-hour journey from Durham. Seated by the window was a woman studiously completing a crossword puzzle in a “Puzzles for Mindfulness” book. As I settled down, I turned to the man seated on my other side and asked if he had been to Glasgow before, which I had learned was the offhanded manner to ask if he was attending COP. Sure enough, as was probably the case for the majority of the flight, he was headed to the conference. He began to discuss his work in renewable energy in the North East as I saw the crossword puzzle close shut.

“Excuse me for overhearing, but are you both headed to COP?” the woman enquired. Excitedly, I responded with a yes and asked her in turn, “are you attending too? Which agency are you with?”

She, it turns out, was a former Chief Scientist of the UN Environment Programme.

For the rest of the flight, she shared her experiences writing IPCC reports, her new findings on plastic pollution, insights into sustainable agriculture, battles with climate deniers, and new technologies to measure soil carbon. I heard about her incredible reforestation project in the community she lives in Kenya and learned how she combines her scientific expertise with the business practices needed to create climate solutions. It was the first time I have ever wished a flight could be longer!

As I got off the plane, I could not believe that I had not even arrived in Glasgow, much less the conference center, and yet I was already interacting with the most brilliant minds in the climate science and action field. If this was the experience I had just traveling to COP26, what will be awaiting me when Week 2 begins?

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Tomorrow, the second half of our cohort and I will arrive at the conference center to attend Week 2 of COP26. Armed with my UNFCCC badge and a sense of excitement, I cannot wait to see global climate policy development in action. While there is so much to take in at COP between negotiations and celebrity sightings (I’ll be keeping my eye out for Obama tomorrow!), I will be especially focused on progress on Article 6.

Article 6 of the Paris Agreement addresses carbon and mitigation trading mechanisms. Despite the celebration of the Paris Agreement’s 6^th birthday this year, the rules surrounding trading still have not been defined. Many experts are calling this COP the last hope in achieving successful negotiations on this rulebook. I have become increasingly invested in decisions on corresponding adjustments, which dictates how emission trading between countries needs to be captured within both Parties’ emissions inventories and Nationally Determined Contributions.

In all, after a semester of learning the history of the UNFCCC and crossing our fingers that our travel request would be approved, I am incredibly ecstatic to have made it to Glasgow and to be attending a Conference of the Parties in person. This is truly a dream come true, and hopefully the first COP of many I will attend as I continue to learn about our world’s climate policy.