Broadening the toolkit for climate change policy can help identify new avenues to enhance global ambition. This paper has explored this expansion process in relation to NMAs in the Paris Agreement under Article 6.8. As demonstrated in Chapters 2 and 3 of this paper, defining NMAs and MBMs is complex. One of the main reasons for this is that NMAs and MBMs are concepts which do not have fixed definitions and have evolved significantly over the last few decades. However, in international climate change policy, MBMs have been given greater structure and clarity through specific mechanisms, for example, the CDM and Joint Implementation in the Kyoto Protocol. By contrast, the concept of NMAs remains broad, highly contentious and vague. As a result, NMAs remain a disputed and underutilised area of climate change policy. Recent work on the Draft Text on NMAs indicates that disputes about NMAs could persist for years. The doctrinal analysis of Article 6.8 and other relevant legal documents in Chapter 3 provides some further clarity on the potential function and nature of NMAs in the Paris Agreement. Specifically, it explores the legal elements of the provision, how these may be interpreted and other relevant eligibility criteria for potential approaches under Article 6.8. However, while mapping the negotiation history of NMAs in the UNFCCC and analysing Article 6.8 provides some guidance for interpretation, it is clear that further work in this field is required.
This paper demonstrates that the process of clarifying Article 6.8 is further complicated by the questions related to historical and future responsibility for climate change which arise in the context of NMAs. In UNFCCC negotiations, developing country Party submissions on NMAs demonstrated that they believed the burden of addressing climate change should remain predominately with developed countries and this could be facilitated through NMAs.607 In addition, Bolivia and Ecuador, in particular, provided detailed information on the types of NMAs which could be incorporated into a new international climate change agreement. By comparison, the majority of developed country Parties’ submissions on NMAs provided only limited support, positioned them as inferior to MBMs or argued that
607 See i.e., FCCC/AWGLCA/2011/MISC.3, p. 16; FCCC/AWGLCA/2011/MISC.3, p. 21-22;
FCCC/AWGLCA/2011/CRP.23, p. 2-3; FCCC/AWGLCA/2012/MISC.4/Add.6, p. 3–4;
FCCC/AWGLCA/2012/MISC.4/Add.2, p. 3–8; FCCC/AWGLCA/2012/MISC.4/Add.3, p. 4;
FCCC/AWGLCA/2009/MISC.6/Add.1, p. 24.
NMAs should not be incorporated in the next climate change agreement.608 This tension is also apparent in literature on the Yasuní ITT proposal609 and arguably resulted in the subsequent reticence for countries to pursue similar proposals. These questions go to the heart of the debate on climate change policy and indicate that, even with the finalisation of the rules and procedures relating to Article 6.8 of the Paris Agreement, it is likely that this issue will continue to cause friction.
Offering a different avenue to develop understanding on Article 6.8, Chapter 4 looks at supply side fossil fuel policy as a case example for how NMAs could be implemented under Article 6.8 of the Paris Agreement. After outlining the benefits of supply side policy, this analysis emphasises important synergies which exist between Article 6.8 and supply side policy, such as aims, key actors and co-benefits. Furthermore, this research has demonstrated that supply side policies under Article 6.8 provides a significant opportunity for country Parties to increase the efficiency and ambition of their climate change policies through NMAs.
This paper highlights several matters relevant to international climate change policy which could be the subject of additional study. First, valuable insights could be gained through more in-depth research into why country Parties either supported or opposed NMAs in the UNFCCC. This could highlight factors which may make countries more amiable towards NMAs in climate change policy. Second, there is opportunity to gain experience with NMAs through pilot projects, notwithstanding the work ongoing to reach agreement on the rules and procedures of Article 6.8. Independent pilot projects such as the Adaptation Benefit Mechanism610 highlight how early movers can draw on existing ideas of NMAs to develop new projects without a finalised framework. Finally, as discussed in section 4.3.2, implementing innovative NMAs under Article 6.8 creates the potential to challenge existing norms which may be environmentally detrimental. Building on existing research,611 there
608 See i.e., FCCC/AWGLCA/2012/MISC.4, p. 26–27; FCCC/AWGLCA/2012/MISC.4/Add.2, p. 12–16;
FCCC/AWGLCA/2012/MISC.4, p. 37; FCCC/AWGLCA/2012/MISC.4, p.34–36; Lithuania and the European Commission 2013, Non- market based approaches (NMA), p. 1–2; Environmental Integrity Group 2013, Framework for various approaches: SBSTA 39.
609 See i.e. Köhler and Michaelowa 2014; Pellegrini et al. 2014.
610 Michaelowa and Butzengeiger 2017, p. 9; African Development Bank Group 2017.
611 See i.e., Green 2018, The logic of fossil fuel bans, p. 449; Green 2018, Fossil Fuel Free Zones.
could be additional studies on how NMAs could have broader impacts on the future norms of international climate change law.
LIST OF REFERENCES
LITERATURE
Books, Articles and Reports
Ackerman, B. and Stewart, R., “Reforming Environmental Law” (1985) 37(5) Stanford Law Review 1333–1365.
African Development Bank Group (2017) Concept Note: Adaptation Benefit Mechanism.
Amellina, A., Enhancing the Joint Crediting Mechanism MRV to Contribute to Sustainable Development, p. 111–127 in Juha Uitto, Jyotsna Puri and Rob van den Berg (eds), Evaluating Climate Change Action for Sustainable Development. Springer International Publishing 2017.
Ari, Izzet and Sari, Ramazan, The role of carbon pricing in the Paris Agreement, p. 240–249 in Uğur Soytaş and Ramazan Sarı (eds.) Routledge Handbook of Energy Economics.
Routledge International Handbooks 2020.
Asian Development Bank, Decoding Article 6 of the Paris Agreement. Asian Development Bank 2018.
Bodanksy, D., The Art and Craft of International Environmental Law. Harvard University Press 2010.
Bodanksy, D; Brunnée, J and Rajamani, L., International Climate Change Law. Oxford University Press 2017.
Bodle. R and Oberthür, S., Legal Form of the Paris Agreement and Nature of Its Obligations, p. 92–103 in Daniel Klein, María Pía Carazo, Meinhard Doelle, Jane Bulmer and Andrew Higham (eds.), The Paris Agreement on Climate Change. Oxford University Press 2017.
Bulmer, J.; Doelle, M. and Klein, D., Negotiating History of the Paris Agreement p. 50–73 in Daniel Klein; María Pía Carazo; Meinhard Doelle; Jane Bulmer and Andrew Higham (eds.), The Paris Agreement on Climate Change. Oxford University Press 2017.
Butt, N.; Beyer, H. L.; Bennett, J. R.; Biggs, D.; Maggini, R.; Mills, M.; Renwick, A. R.;
Seabrook, L. M. and Possingham H. P., “Biodiversity Risks from Fossil Fuel Extraction” (2013) 342 Policy Forum 425-426.
Carlarne, Cinnamon; Gray, Kevin and Tarasofsky, Richard, International Climate Change Law: Mapping the Field, p. 3–25 in Kevin Gray; Richard Tarasofsky and Cinnamon Carlarne (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of International Climate Change Law. Oxford University Press 2016.
Climate Investment Funds and Green Climate Fund (2020) Synergies Between Climate Finance Mechanisms: Synthesis Report.
Coffin, Mike and Grant, Andrew, Breaking the Habit - Why None of the Large Oil Companies are “Paris-Aligned”, and What They Need to do to Get There. Carbon Track Initiative 2019.
Deplano, Rossana, Introduction, p. 1-17 in Rossana Deplano (ed.), Pluralising International Legal Scholarship: The Promise and Perils of Non-Doctrinal Research Methods.
Edward Elgar Publishing 2019.
Depledge, J., Foundations for the Paris Agreement, p. 29–42 book Daniel Klein; María Pía Carazo; Meinhard Doelle; Jane Bulmer and Andrew Higham (eds.), The Paris Agreement on Climate Change. Oxford University Press 2017.
Doelle, M., Assessment of Strengths and Weakness, p. 375–390 in Daniel Klein, María Pía Carazo, Meinhard Doelle, Jane Bulmer and Andrew Higham (eds.), The Paris Agreement on Climate Change. Oxford University Press 2017.
Driesen, David, The Economic Dynamics of Law. Cambridge University Press 2012.
Erickson, P.; Lazarus, M. and Piggot, G. “Limiting fossil fuel production as the next big step in climate policy” (2018) 8 Nature Climate Change 1037–1043.
Fæhn, T.; Hagem, C.; Lindholt, L.; Mæland, S. and Rosendahl, K. E. “Climate policies in a fossil fuel producing country: demand versus supply side policies” (2017) 38(1) The Energy Journal 77–102.
Fischlin, A., Scientific and Political Drivers for the Paris Agreement, p. 3–16 book Daniel Klein; María Pía Carazo; Meinhard Doelle; Jane Bulmer and Andrew Higham (eds.), The Paris Agreement on Climate Change. Oxford University Press 2017.
Folke, C; Biggs, R; Norström, A.V; Reyers, B and Rockström, J., “Social-ecological resilience and biosphere-based sustainability science” (2016) 21(3) Ecology and Society 41-57.
Freestone, D, The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change—The Basis for the Climate Change Regime, p 98–119 in Kevin Gray; Richard Tarasofsky and Cinnamon Carlarne (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of International Climate Change Law. Oxford University Press 2016.
Gailus, J. (2019) Oil, Gas and the Climate: An Analysis of Oil and Gas Industry Plans for Expansion and Compatibility with Global Emission Limits 2019. Global Gas and Oil Network, supported by Oil Change International; 350.org; Center for Biological Diversity; Center for International Environmental Law; CAN-Rac Canada;
Earthworks; Environmental Defence Canada; Fundacin Ambiente y Recursos Naturales:FARN; Global Witness; Greenpeace; Friends of the Earth Netherlands (Milieudefensie); Naturvernforbundet; Observatorio Petrolero Sur; Overseas Development Institute; Platform; Sierra Club; Stand.Earth.
Gaulin, Nicolas and Le Billon, Philippe, “Climate change and fossil fuel production cuts:
assessing global supply-side constraints and policy implications” (2020) Forthcoming special issue: Supply-side fossil fuel policies Climate Policy 1-14.
Gerasimchuk, Ivetta; Merrill, Laura; Bridle, Richard; Gass, Phil; Sanchez, Lourdes; Kitson, Lucy and Wooders, Peter, Stories For Success For The UNFCC Talanoa Dialogue:
Fossil Fuel Phase-Out and a Just Transition: Learning from stories of coal phase-outs (2018) International Institute for Sustainable Development.
Ghaleigh, N. S., Economics and International Climate Change Law, p 73–94 in Kevin Gray;
Richard Tarasofsky and Cinnamon Carlarne (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of International Climate Change Law. Oxford University Press 2016.
Green, F. and Denniss, R. “Cutting with both arms of the scissors: the economic and political case for restrictive supply-side climate policies” (2018) 150(1-2) Climatic Change 73–
87.
Green, F. Fossil fuel free zones (Discussion Paper). The Australia Institute 2018.
Green, F., “The logic of fossil fuel bans” (2018) 8(6) Nature Climate Change 449-451.
Grubb, Michael; Hourcade, Jean-Charles and Neuhoff, Karsten. Planetary Economics:
Energy, Climate Change and the Three Domains of Sustainable Development.
Routledge, Taylor and Frances 2014.
Hahn, Robert and Stavins, Robert, “Economic Incentives for Environmental Protection:
Integrating Theory and Practice” (1992) 82(2) The American Economic Review 464–
468.
Hall, Stephen, Researching International Law, p. 253-280 in Mike McConville and Wing Hong Chui (eds.), Research Methods for Law. 2nd Edition. Edinburgh University Press 2017.
Harfoot, M.; Tittensor, D.; Knight, S.; Arnell, A.; Blyth, S.; Brooks, S.; Butchart, S.; Hutton, J.; Jones, M.; Kapos, V.; Scharlemann, J.; Burgess, N., Present and future biodiversity risks from fossil fuel exploitation. (2018) 11(4) Conservation Letters 1-13.
Harstad, B., “Buy coal! A case for supply-side environmental policy” (2012) 120(1) Journal of Political Economy 77–115.
Harvey, David. A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford University Press 2005.
Hein, Jayni, "Federal Lands and Fossil Fuels: Maximizing Social Welfare in Federal Energy Leasing." (2018) 42(1) Harvard Environmental Law Review 1-60.
Heine, D.; Faure, M.G. and Dominioni, G., “The Polluter-Pays Principle in Climate Change Law: an Economic Appraisal” (2020) 10 Climate Law 94-115.
Howard, A., Voluntary Cooperation (Article 6), p. 178–196 in Daniel Klein, María Pía Carazo, Meinhard Doelle, Jane Bulmer and Andrew Higham (eds.), The Paris Agreement on Climate Change. Oxford University Press 2017.
Hsu, Shi-Ling, International Market Mechanisms, p 240–256 in Kevin Gray; Richard Tarasofsky and Cinnamon Carlarne (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of International Climate Change Law. Oxford University Press 2016.
International Carbon Action Partnership (2020) ETS Detailed Information: China National ETS. Berlin. Updated 8 January 2020.
International Emissions Trading Association and Carbon Pricing Leadership Coalition (2019) The Economic Potential of Article 6 of the Paris Agreement and Implementation Challenges: Summary Report.
Ivanova, M., Politics, Economics and Society, p. 17–26 in Daniel Klein; María Pía Carazo;
Meinhard Doelle; Jane Bulmer and Andrew Higham (eds.), The Paris Agreement on Climate Change. Oxford University Press 2017.
Karlsson, Mikael, Alfredsson, Eva and Westling, Nils, “Climate policy co-benefits: a review” (2020) 20(3) Climate Policy 292-316.
Kartha, S.; Caney, S.; Dubash, N. K., and Muttitt, G. “Whose carbon is burnable? Equity considerations in the allocation of a “right to extract.”” (2018) 150 Climatic Change 117–129.
Keohane, N. Capital and the Common Good: How Innovative Finance is Tackling the World’s Most Urgent Problems. Columbia University Press 2016.
Keohane, N.; Revesz, R.L. and Stavins, R.N (1997). The Positive Political Economy of Instrument Choice in Environmental Policy. Discussion Paper 97-25. Resources for the Future.
Klein, Naomi, On Fire: The (Burning) Case for a Green New Deal. Simon & Schuster 2019.
Klein, Naomi, This Changes Everything. Penguin Books 2014.
Köhler, Michel and Michaelowa, Axel, “Limiting Climate Change by Fostering Net Avoided Emissions: Reducing Fossil Fuel Supply and Emissions from Fuel Exploitation” (2014) 8(1) Carbon and Climate Law Review 55–64.
Koivurova, Timo, Introduction to International Environmental Law. Routledge 2014.
Kollmuss, Anja; Schneider, Lambert and Zhezherin, Vladyslav, Has Joint Implementation reduced GHG emissions? Lessons learned for the design of carbon market mechanisms. Stockholm Environment Institute, (2015) Working Paper 07- 2015.
Landefeld, Sarina, The evolution of norms and concepts in international law: a social constructivist approach, p. 45-63 in Rossana Deplano (ed.), Pluralising International Legal Scholarship: The Promise and Perils of Non-Doctrinal Research Methods.
Edward Elgar Publishing 2019.
Lazarus, Michael and van Asselt, Harro, “Fossil fuel supply and climate policy; exploring the road less taken”. (2018) 150 Climatic Change 1–13.
Le Billon, P. and Kristoffersen, B., “Just cuts for fossil fuels? Supply-side carbon constraints and energy transition” (2019) Economy and Space 1-21.
Leshy, J. D, “Interior's authority to curb fossil fuel leasing” (2019) 49(7) Environmental Law Reporter 10631-10632.
Mehling, Michael, Governing Cooperative Approaches under the Paris Agreement. Harvard Project on Climate Agreements Discussion Paper ES 8, 2018.
Mehling, Michael; Metcalf, Gilbert and Stavins, Robert, “Linking Heterogeneous Climate Policies (Consistent with the Paris Agreement)” (2018) 48 Environmental Law 647-698.
Metz, Bert, Controlling Climate Change. Cambridge University Press 2010.
Michaelowa, A., and Butzengeiger, S., (2017) Ensuring additionality under Art. 6 of the Paris Agreement: Suggestions for modalities and procedures for crediting of mitigation under Art. 6.2 and 6.4 and public climate finance provision under Art. 6.8.
Discussion Paper – November 2017. Perspectives Climate Research.
Muttitt, G.; McKinnon, H.; Stockman, L.; Kretzmann, S.; Scott, A. and Turnbull, D. The sky’s limit: why the Paris climate goals require a managed decline of fossil fuel production. Oil Change International 2016.
Nagy, Ervin and Varga, Gisella, Emissions Trading: Lessons learned from the European Union and Kyoto Protocol Climate Change Programs. Nova Science Publishers, Inc 2009.
Narassimhan, Easwaran; Gallagher, Kelly; Koester, Stefan and Alejo, Julio, “Carbon pricing in practice: a review of existing emissions trading systems” (2018) 18(8) Climate Policy 967-991.
Nishimura, T., The Paris Agreement: Continuity and Change within the Climate Regime, p.
42–58 in Neil Craik, Cameron Jefferies, Sara Seck and Tim Stephens (eds), Global environmental change and innovation in international law. Cambridge University Press 2018.
Nordic Initiative for Cooperative Approaches (2019) Landscape of Article 6 Pilots: A close look at initial cooperative approaches. Helsinki, Finland.
OCED (2016) Towards the USD 100 Billion Goal. OECD Technical note.
OECD (2019) Climate Finance Provided and Mobilised by Developed Countries in 2013-17. OECD Publishing
OECD and IEA (2019) Update on recent progress in reform of inefficient fossil-fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption.
Oreskes, N. and Conway, E., Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming. Bloomsbury Press 2010.
Ostrom, V. and Ostrom, E., Public Goods and Public Choices. The University of Michigan Press 2002.
Parr, A. The Wrath of Capital: Neoliberalism and Climate Change Politics. Columbia University Press 2012.
Pellegrini, L.; Arsel, M.; Falconí, F. and Muradian, R. “The demise of a new conservation and development policy? Exploring the tensions of the Yasuní ITT initiative” (2014) 1 The Extractive Industries and Society 284-291.
Pendleton, Michael, Rejecting the Dominance of Empirical Legal Scholarship – A Better Way of Choosing, Researching and Writing a Scholarly Article, p. 231-252 in Mike McConville and Wing Hong Chui (eds.), Research Methods for Law. Second Edition.
Edinburgh University Press 2017.
Piggot, Georgia; Erickson, Peter; van Asselt, Harro and Lazarus, Michael, “Swimming upstream: addressing fossil fuel supply under the UNFCCC” (2018) 18(9) Climate Policy 1189-1202.
Rafaty, Ryan; Srivastav, Sugandha and Hoops, Björn, “Revoking coal mining permits: an economic and legal analysis” (2020) Forthcoming special issue: Supply-side fossil fuel policies Climate Policy 1-17.
Rich, Nathaniel, Losing Earth: A Recent History. MCD Farrar, Straus and Giroux 2019.
Richter, P. M.; Mendelevitch, R. and Jotzo, F. “Coal taxes as supply-side climate policy: a rationale for major exporters?” 150 (2018) Climatic Change 43–56.
Sands, P. and Peel, J., Principles of International Environmental Law. 4th edition.
Cambridge University Press 2018.
Schneider, Lambert and La Hoz Theuer, S., “Environmental integrity of international carbon market mechanisms under the Paris Agreement” (2018) 19(3) Climate Policy 386–
400.
Schneider, Lambert, The trade-offs of trade: Realities and risks of carbon markets, p. 130-144 in Huguette Labelle (ed.), Global Corruption Report: Climate Change. Taylor and Francis 2013.
SEI, IISD, ODI, Climate Analytics, CICERO, and UNEP (2019) The Production Gap: The discrepancy between countries’ planned fossil fuel production and global production levels consistent with limiting warming to 1.5°C or 2°C.
Sinn, Hans-Werner, “Public policies against global warming: a supply side approach”
(2008) 15 International Tax Public Finance 360-394.
Sutton, Rebecca (1999) The Policy Process: An Overview. Working Paper 118. Overseas Development Institute.
United Nations Environment Programme (2019) Global Environment Outlook 6
United Nations Environment Programme (2019) The Emissions Gap Report 2019. UNEP, Nairobi.
United Nations Environment Programme and International Resource Panel (2019) Global Resources Outlook 2019: Natural Resources for the Future We Want: Summary for Policymakers.
Universal Declaration of Rights of Mother Earth, World People’s Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth. Cochabamba, Bolivia, 22 April 2010.
van Asselt, H; Kulovesi, K and Mehling, M., “Negotiating the Paris Rulebook: Introduction to the Special Issue” (2018) 12(3) Carbon & Climate Law Review 173–183.
van Asselt, Harro (2014) Governing the transition away from fossil fuels: the role of international institutions. SEI Working Paper No. 2014– 07. Stockholm Environment Institute.
van Asselt, Harro and Gupta, Joyeeta, “Stretching Too Far? Developing Countries and the Role of Flexibility Mechanisms Beyond Kyoto” (2009) 28 Stanford Environmental Law Journal 311–379.
van Asselt, Harro, The Design and Implementation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading, p. 333–352 in Kevin Gray; Richard Tarasofsky and Cinnamon Carlarne (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of International Climate Change Law. Oxford University Press 2016.
van der Ploeg, F. and Withagen, C., “Is there really a green paradox?” (2012) 64 Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 342-363.
van Hoecke, Mark, Legal doctrine : which method(s) for what kind of discipline?, p. 1–18 in Mark van Hoecke (ed.), Methodologies of legal research : which kind of method for what kind of discipline?. Hart Publishing 2013.
Wagner, G and Weitzman, M.L, Climate Shock: The economic consequences of a hotter planet. Princeton University Press 2015.
Wara, Michael, “Measuring the Clean Development Mechanism’s Performance and Potential” (2008) 55 UCLA Law Review 1759-1803.
Weishaar, S., Introducing carbon taxes – issues and barriers, p. 1–19 in Mona Hymel – Larry Kreiser – Janet E Milne and Hope Ashiabor (eds), Innovation Addressing Climate Change Challenges: Market-Based Perspectives. Elgar Online 2018.
World Bank Reports (2019) State and Trends of Carbon Pricing 2019. World Bank, Washington, DC.
World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) Our Common Future. Oxford University Press.
Earth Negotiations Bulletin
Earth Negotiations Bulletin, Summary of The Copenhagen Climate Change Conference: 7-19 December 2009, 22 December 2009. International Institute for Sustainable Development, Vol. 12(459).
Earth Negotiations Bulletin, Summary of The Doha Climate Change Conference26 November- 8 December 2012, 11 December 2012. International Institute for Sustainable Development, Vol. 12(567).
Earth Negotiations Bulletin, Summary of The Warsaw Climate Change Conference: 11-23 November 2013, 26 November 2013. International Institute for Sustainable Development, Vol. 12(594).
Earth Negotiations Bulletin, Paris Highlights: Tuesday, 1 December 2015. 2 December 2015. International Institute for Sustainable Development, Vol. 12(654).
Earth Negotiations Bulletin, Paris Highlights: Wednesday, 2 December 2015. 3 December 2015. International Institute for Sustainable Development, Vol. 12(655).
Earth Negotiations Bulletin, Paris Highlights 2015: Thursday, 3 December 2015. 4 December 2015. International Institute for Sustainable Development, Vol. 12(656).
Earth Negotiations Bulletin, Paris Highlights 2015: Friday, 4 December 2015. 5 December 2015. International Institute for Sustainable Development, Vol. 12(657).
Earth Negotiations Bulletin, Paris Highlights 2015: Saturday, 5 December 2015. 7 December 2015. International Institute for Sustainable Development, Vol. 12(658).
Earth Negotiations Bulletin, Paris Highlights 2015: Tuesday, 8 December, p. 8 December 2015. International Institute for Sustainable Development, Vol. 12(659).
Earth Negotiations Bulletin, Summary of the Paris Climate Change Conference: 29 November – 13 December 2015. 15 December 2015. International Institute for Sustainable Development, Vol. 12(663).
OFFICIAL SOURCES United Nations Documents General Assembly Resolutions
General Assembly (GA) Resolution on United Nations Conference on Environment and Development: United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, G.A.
Res. 44/228, 44th Sess., Supp. No. 49, U.N. Doc. A/44/49 (1990)
General Assembly (GA) Resolution on Harmony with Nature, G.A. Res. 74/224, 74th Sess., U.N. Doc. A/RES/74/224 (2020)
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Documents General UNFCCC Documents
Barry, Conor (2016) The Paris Agreement: The Role of Market Mechanisms. UNFCCC Secretariat Workshop. Bangkok, Thailand (15 February 2016).
CMA, 15 December 2019. Draft Text on Matters relating to Article 6 of the Paris Agreement: Work programme under the framework for non-market approaches
CMA, 15 December 2019. Draft Text on Matters relating to Article 6 of the Paris Agreement: Work programme under the framework for non-market approaches