While Dufrasne acknowledges that Article 6 is a highly technical issue that needs to be resolved, he argues that many of the remaining issues are political. He says the parties are taking advantage of the complexity of the text to mask the fact that some of their proposed rules would allow for “blatant fraud.” The graph also shows how the draft texts of Article 6 seem to have receded after discussions in Bonn in June 2019 (right column in the graph). The draft legislation of Article 6.2, Article 6.4 and Article 6.8 includes, on the one hand, 41 pages containing 672 brackets. The precise approach to avoiding the use of emissions reductions by more than one country is one area of significant divergence. It is closely linked to the idea of double counting within the meaning of Article 6.2, with both questions being asked about what is considered “internal” and “outside” the scope of a country`s PNNMs, with some commitments covering only part of the economy. The arrival of a Paris agreement that satisfied everyone meant that a certain degree of “constructive ambiguity” would remain in the text. This means that there was room for a series of interpretations in the formulation of the rules. The growing number of unresolved areas in the text following the Bonn meeting reflects a reluctance, as many countries and negotiating blocs have abandoned their starting positions during the discussions, after giving in to COP24 in a spirit of compromise. The agreement stated that it would only enter into force (and therefore fully effective) if 55 countries that produce at least 55% of global greenhouse gas emissions (according to a list drawn up in 2015)  ratify, accept, approve or adhere to the agreement.   On April 1, 2016, the United States and China, which together account for nearly 40% of global emissions, issued a joint statement confirming that the two countries would sign the Paris climate agreement.  175 contracting parties (174 states and the European Union) signed the agreement on the first day of its signing.   On the same day, more than 20 countries announced plans to join the accession as soon as possible in 2016. The ratification by the European Union has achieved a sufficient number of contracting parties to enter into force on 4 November 2016.
Despite this setback, Kizzier says that “the heart of an Article 6 agreement is still on the table.” She added: “There are stumbling blocks that still need to be resolved, but once they have been adopted, the text could come together very quickly.” This highlights a reason for disagreement with Article 6.4, namely that cdM hosts did not have specific Kyoto emission reduction targets, meaning that economies cannot be “counted twice” towards more than one target. How each country is on track to meet its obligations under the Paris Agreement can be constantly monitored online (via the Climate Action Tracker  and the climate clock). This supports the idea, which was discussed at COP21 but is not included in the Paris text, that emissions reductions should go “beyond the NPNs” of the host country, in accordance with Article 6.4. Some argue that the use of strict baselines would guarantee “OMGE,” the net reduction benefit required by Article 6.4. The three separate mechanisms – in accordance with Articles 6.2, 6.4 and 6.8 – were all part of the Paris Agreement, in recognition of the competing interests and priorities between the contracting parties to the agreement. These differences remain and need to be reviewed if the section 6 regulatory framework is to be adopted.