Article 6.4 Forms Research

[prernaadev01]

Problem description

This was requested by Wes, but the details are still being discussed. Perhaps it could be interesting to research and summarize the main differences between the requirements of the 6.4 forms and those of the big three standard registries. For example, ‘Project design document (PDD) form for Article 6.4 projects (PDF)’, has fields such as “Sectoral scope(s)”, which I presume is a field that would already be present in the PDD of any CDM project. However, there may be other fields such as “Avoidance of lock-in” which may not. Some requirements may be covered by CDM, but not Verra. In other instances, entire forms may not be entirely captured by current policy/workflow components (e.g., A6.4-FORM-AC-038 - Request for review of request for renewal of crediting period form for Article 6.4 projects, Request for issuance withdrawal form for Article 6.4 projects, etc.). So, perhaps the first part of the research is to identify and summarize the key additional requirements of 6.4 compared to each of the big three standards?
The second part of the research could be the implications for Guardian, particularly how the Guardian may be used to demonstrate compliance with the additional requirements of article 6.4, considering that most of the requirements may already have been demonstrated (and perhaps validated/verified) under a major standard/registry.
One concept that comes to mind here is Verra’s “labels” for VCUs.  A VCU label indicates that a unit meets the requirements of other (non-VCS) standards programs or is eligible/qualifies to be traded in specific markets. There is a label for Article 6 of the Paris Agreement. VCUs may receive Article 6 Label(s) to indicate they have been authorized for specific uses by host countries (“Parties”) under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement. Perhaps we can digitize/mimic this concept in the Guardian? https://verra.org/programs/verified-carbon-standard/verified-carbon-units-labels/

Requirements

o   Identify the additional requirements of Article 6 in comparison to one (or more) of the main voluntary standards.
o   Determine functionality requirements to implement a “label-type” feature discussed above

Definition of done

o   Additional requirements of Article 6 have been identified and mapped out.
o   Guardian functionality exists and/or new features are implemented to support a “label-type” feature.

Acceptance criteria

o   Labels, or some similar concept, are sufficient to efficiently demonstrate compliance with Article 6, with minimal redundancies between the existing standards and requirements of Article 6.