Implementation Status of Article 6.2 Guidance

Thirty-six Parties analyzed have authorization arrangements in place, while 56 Parties are estimated to have authorization arrangements in progress or under consideration.

This is an increase from the 2025 findings, where 22 Parties had authorization arrangements in place.

The majority of Parties analyzed demonstrate advancement toward Article 6.2 authorization arrangements.

The authority to provide authorization was identified for 76 Parties.

Forty-eight laws, policies, strategies, or frameworks regarding authorization for ITMOs have been identified across the Parties analyzed.

Identification of Potential Mitigation Activities for Authorization Under Article 6.2

Parties engaging with Article 6 are increasingly defining the types of mitigation activities they intend to authorize under Article 6.2. Identifying eligible mitigation activities can promote clarity and certainty to prospective project developers and participating Parties, driving investment that aligns with their NDC objectives and national priorities. This includes eligibility lists, which support Parties to decide which types of mitigation activities to authorize under Article 6. The types of eligibility lists can be wide-ranging, but may include positive, priority, or negative lists. A positive or priority list refers to a list of activities, activity types, or technologies that may be considered or prioritized for authorization under Article 6.2. On the other hand, a negative list refers to a list of activities, activity types, or technologies that may not be considered for authorization under Article 6. Other lists that categorize activities, activity types, or technologies to support authorization decisions under Article 6 may also be used.

Of Parties which responded to the survey, 72% stated an intention to consider, develop or use a positive, priority, negative and/or other list for supporting authorization under Article 6.2.

Of the Parties that indicated this intention in the survey, the status of the eligibility list is: 39% under consideration, 41% in progress, and 20% in place.

When combining survey information with publicly available information, ten Parties are found to have publicly accessible positive lists.

Tracking Arrangements Under Article 6.2 Guidance

Sixteen Parties analyzed have Article 6.2 tracking arrangements in place, while 70 Parties are estimated to have tracking arrangements in progress or under consideration. Collectively, 81% of Parties have tracking arrangements in place, in progress, or under consideration, indicating many Parties are aiming to establish tracking arrangements
for ITMOs.

The majority of Parties analyzed have tracking arrangements for ITMOs in progress, under consideration, or in place.

Registries for tracking ITMOs have been identified for 41 Parties.

Reporting under Article 6.2

Twenty-three Parties have formally submitted an Article 6.2 initial report to the UNFCCC, either by submitting to the CARP and/or as annex to the Biennial Transparency Report (BTR). Eight Parties have submitted annual information, in the form of an Agreed Electronic Format (AEF) to CARP. Finally, five Parties have submitted details on Article 6 implementation (relevant to regular information, in part or in full) as part of the BTR. Overall, submission of initial reports for Article 6.2 remains limited but has doubled since the previous iteration of the A6ISR. Initial reports are key to enable transparency of cooperative approaches under Article 6.

The second centralized review of the Article 6 Technical Expert Review (Article 6 TER) was conducted from late 2025 through 2026, with the review finalized and the TER reports published for at least additional nine initial reports. Significant inconsistencies were identified across all initial reports under this review cycle, highlighting ongoing challenges Parties faced in reporting practices and potentially in their engagement in the review process. These results also underscore the urgent needs to strengthen understanding and capacity in Article 6 reporting. A facilitative, efficient, and Party-driven review remains important to encourage timely reporting while maintaining trust and transparency in Article 6 implementation.

Cambodia, Ghana, Guyana, Honduras, Japan, Madagascar, Malawi, Maldives, Mongolia, Palau, Peru, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Switzerland, Tanzania, Thailand, The Gambia, Tunisia, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, and Zimbabwe have submitted Article 6.2 initial reports, while Ghana, Guyana, Japan, Madagascar, Maldives, Switzerland, Thailand, and Vanuatu have submitted annual information using the draft version of the AEF. Ghana, Guyana, Madagascar, Thailand, and Zimbabwe have also included details relevant to Article 6 regular information in BTRs and/or in the CARP.

Article 6.2 Guidance Implementation Challenges

Parties were also invited to share regarding priorities, challenges, and resources for implementing Article 6.2 guidance.

Parties could select up to two urgent priorities. The bar chart reflects the percentage of Parties responding to this question that selected each priority.

Of those Parties that responded to this question, developing tracking arrangements was the most frequently indicated urgent priority, followed by expanding the pipeline of Article 6 activities aligned with national priorities (i.e. NDC, Long-Term Low Emission Development Strategies, etc.) and increasing reporting capacity. Parties also indicated “other” urgent priorities, such as finishing implementing and designing the national framework (guidelines, arrangements, resolutions,
etc.), capacity building, implementing Article 6 activities, and a study to review and update the positive list.

Urgent or Pressing Challenges Related to Implementation of the Article 6.2 Guidance

Parties were also invited to share about urgent/specific challenges. Key themes among the urgent challenges shared by responding Parties included:

Most Helpful Additional Resources or Support to Achieve Effective Implementation of the Article 6.2 Guidance

Finally, Parties optionally shared about specific additional resources or support that would be most helpful to achieve effective Article 6.2 implementation. Examples included:

Conclusion

Global readiness for implementing Article 6.2 remains limited, but is gradually increasing from the first iteration of the A6ISR.

The rate of authorization arrangements in place has increased most noticeably in the third report, followed by submission of initial reports. However, the percentage of Parties with both authorization and tracking arrangements in place only slightly increased, impacted by the limited number of tracking arrangements in place. Tracking arrangement development may be a potential implementation bottleneck for Parties, aligning with the most frequently reported urgent priority by survey participants.

Ultimately, many Parties are considering implementation, representing various stages of development of authorization and tracking arrangements.

Having arrangements in place is critical to demonstrate fulfillment of participation responsibilities under Article 6.2 and enable Parties to make informed decisions regarding authorization that ensure high integrity, promote NDC implementation and ambition, and align with the long-term goals, record necessary ITMOs information, and effectively report necessary information as required under the Article 6.2 guidance. Finally, timely and robust Article 6 reporting is pivotal for promoting transparency and trust in the cooperative approach implementation. Map 4 displays the overall implementation status of Article 6.2 for each Party analyzed considering authorization, tracking, and reporting statuses.

Endnotes and Remarks

Designations and information are subject to interpretation, including of survey respondents and the A6IP Center. Please note that survey responses are subject to review, and information in the A6ISR ultimately reflects the understanding of the A6IP Center.

While the A6IP Center has exercised its best effort to ensure accuracy and completeness of information, the “Authority to Provide Authorization by Party” table may not capture all agencies engaging with Article 6 authorization in a Party. The Authority to Provide Authorization listed may not be actively providing authorization.

Data from the first A6ISR was current as of 1 November 2024, data from the second A6ISR was current as of approximately 28 August 2024, and data from the third A6ISR was current as of approximately 18 August 2025.

Figure 2 only includes Parties which responded to the 2026 survey. All Parties that successfully submitted the survey answered this question.

Figure 3 only includes Parties which responded to the 2026 survey and shared a status towards positive, priority, negative and/or other list development.

Figure 5 only includes Parties which responded to the 2026 survey and provided information regarding urgent priorities. Each Party could select up to two priorities.

In regard to Figure 6, the number of Parties to the Paris Agreement decreased to 194 for the third A6ISR (applicable to initial report calculation only). Please note that both the United State of America and Yemen are included as “Percentage of Parties in the A6ISR” where relevant in the other calculations in this chart. The total number of Parties in the A6ISR is different for each year of the A6ISR.

Supplementary Explanation for Chapter 2
Information regarding designations for the purpose of evaluating implementation status of Parties included in the A6ISR.

Authorization:
¡ “In place” refers to a Party that has clearly defined the arrangements for the purpose of authorization. This may refer to a Party that has established a legal or administration framework that defines the authority to provide authorization and authorization procedures.
¡ “In progress” refers to a Party that has taken action toward developing authorization arrangements.
¡ “Under consideration” indicates a Party may be interested in authorization arrangements but is not yet in the development stage.

Positive list:
¡ A positive or priority list refers to a list of activities, activity types, or technologies that may be considered or prioritized for authorization under Article 6.
¡ A negative list refers to a list of activities, activity types, or technologies that may not be considered for authorization under Article 6.
¡ Other lists are lists that categorize activities, activity types, or technologies to support authorization decisions under Article 6.

Tracking:
¡ “In place” refers to a Party that has clearly defined the
arrangements for the purpose of tracking. This may refer to a Party that has or has access to a fully operational registry that can track ITMOs.
¡ “In progress” refers to a Party that has taken action toward developing tracking arrangements.
¡ “Under consideration” indicates a Party may be interested in tracking arrangements but is not yet in the development stage.

Chapter 2 Publicly Available Key Data References on Reporting
UNFCCC CARP: https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/article-6/article-62/carp/reports

UNFCCC BTR Records: https://unfccc.int/first-biennial-transparency-reports