UGC NET Questions (Paper – 1)

Article 6 of the Paris Agreement provides for two broad mechanisms: bilateral or plurilateral cooperative approaches under 6.2, and a UN-supervised crediting mechanism under 6.4. At COP29, parties worked to finalise rulebooks that clarify accounting, authorisation and reporting, so that carbon trading can support higher ambition and avoid double counting. Agreement on these rules is seen as crucial for building confidence in international carbon markets. It also links trading to sustainable development safeguards. (Drishti IAS)

Option A:
This option is incorrect because there was no decision to abolish all carbon markets; instead, negotiations focused on how to shape them under Article 6. Carbon markets remain a recognised tool, though their design is contested. Saying they were “completely abolished” misrepresents the outcome.

Option B:
Limiting participation to companies and excluding countries would contradict the concept of “cooperative approaches” between parties to the Paris Agreement. In practice, Article 6.2 is about country-to-country transfers backed by robust national accounting. This option therefore mis-states the architecture.

Option C:
Restricting carbon markets only to forestry projects was not the decision; while land-use and forestry are important, Article 6 mechanisms can, in principle, cover multiple sectors. This over-narrow description does not match the breadth of discussions.

Option D:
This option accurately reflects the dual structure of Article 6 and the focus of COP29 decisions on operationalising both 6.2 and 6.4 mechanisms. It captures why the outcome matters for future carbon trading and for linking markets to the Paris goals, making it the correct answer.