Avoiding double counting of mitigation efforts is an important issue discussed among Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). If emission reductions are double counted, actual global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions could be higher than the sum of what individual countries report. As a result, countries could appear to meet established mitigation pledges, while total emissions exceed these levels. Double counting of emission reductions would also make mitigation efforts less comparable and could discourage the use of market-based approaches to mitigate climate change.

Fifty-eight countries have made economy-wide mitigation pledges under the Cancun Agreements, almost all...

Double counting of emission reductions can occur in many different ways. Understanding how it can occur is crucial to identifying and addressing all forms of double counting, and understanding the environmental risks they entail. It can also help Parties to agree which types of double counting should be addressed under the UNFCCC and which may be addressed elsewhere. The risks for the integrity of the international climate regime can vary considerably depending on the type of double counting. Some types pose significant risks; others may have less of an impact up to 2020, but may be important to address if...

A key consideration for Parties to the UNFCCC is whether — and which types of — double counting should be addressed under UNFCCC, or rather by other national, international or non-governmental bodies. In this section, we discuss whether Parties should agree on a UNFCCC framework to avoid double counting, and then identify the types of mitigation pledges and units for which double counting should be addressed under the UNFCCC. We then explore the relevance of double counting between mitigation pledges and financial or technology pledges, and finally discuss whether Parties should also address double counting of mitigation actions that may...

Rules to avoid double counting currently mainly exist under the framework of the Kyoto Protocol, which specifies what types of units may be used to meet commitments as well as the modalities for their issuance, transfer and use. National registries undergo an international review, and transactions between and within national registries must be endorsed by an International Transaction Log which checks the consistency of the transactions with internationally agreed rules. The issuance of Certified Emission Reductions (CERs) under the CDM occurs under the governance of the CDM Executive Board into a dedicated registry. In addition, specific rules were introduced under...

In this section, we assess what type of rules are generally needed to address double counting. We explore different governance arrangements with regard to the issuance, transfer and use of units, and identify and assess options that address the different forms of double counting, including options for the accounting of units, for the design of mechanisms, and for tracking of units.

In Section 2 we highlighted that double counting and can appear in different forms and result from different situations, and is therefore not straight-forward to address. It is often argued that a system for consistent tracking and reporting of...

Avoiding double counting of emission reductions is a key UNFCCC objective, for both the mitigation pledges made under the Cancun Agreements and a post-2020 climate regime. If emission reductions are double counted, global mitigation efforts could be undermined considerably, mitigation pledges would be less comparable, and the credibility of the international climate regime would be undermined. Moreover, double counting could discourage participation in international carbon markets, and thus increase global GHG abatement costs.

Addressing double counting poses political and technical challenges. A major technical challenge is that double counting can occur in several different ways and hence requires actions at...