Carbon Market Watch’s recommendations to Article 6 negotiators at SBSTA 60

The document argues that current implementations of Article 6.2 lack coherence and transparency, citing examples like Guyana's use of ART TREES HFLD methodology to issue credits that may not represent real emission reductions. Carbon Market Watch recommends a 'reset' of talks to prioritize rigorous safeguards, the exclusion of emission avoidance activities from both Article 6.2 and 6.4, and the establishment of a strict sequencing process where ITMOs cannot be transferred until a review is complete. It further calls for a detailed Agreed Electronic Format (AEF) for public reporting and the prohibition of authorization revocations after ITMO transfer to prevent double counting.

• Current implementations of Article 6.2 are characterized by a lack of coherence and transparency, creating risks that could increase without clear rules. The document highlights the activities of UAE-based company Blue Carbon, which has signed agreements that may grant it exclusive rights for decades to own and trade carbon credits over millions of hectares of land with minimal transparency regarding revenue distribution or ownership.
• Guyana's initial report for Article 6.2 is cited as problematic because it utilizes the ART TREES High Forest Low Deforestation (HFLD) methodology. This approach allows for the issuance of credits based on theoretical deforestation assessments rather than actual mitigation; specifically, 84% of the 33.5 million credits issued to Guyana between 2016 and 2020 resulted from an artificial HFLD adjustment factor.
• To prevent double counting, Carbon Market Watch recommends that no revisions or revocations of authorizations be permitted once Internationally Transferred Mitigation Outcomes (ITMOs) have been transferred, retired, or cancelled.
• The document proposes a strict sequencing for Article 6.2, asserting that ITMOs must not be transferred until the review process is complete to avoid the trade of credits that do not comply with guidance.
• Material inconsistencies in cooperative approaches or ITMOs should invalidate their use toward Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) achievement or Other Mitigation and Removal Purposes (OIMP) unless resolved. For serious violations regarding human rights or environmental integrity, corrective measures should include freezing a Party's ITMOs or involving the Paris Agreement Implementation and Compliance Committee.
• The Agreed Electronic Format (AEF) should be a publicly accessible, disaggregated database containing unique identifiers for cooperative approaches, detailed ITMO information (including vintage and permanence risk), review status, and reporting on voluntary cancellations for adaptation purposes.
• Carbon Market Watch recommends that emission avoidance activities be explicitly excluded from eligibility under both Article 6.2 and Article 6.4.

APA

Carbon Market Watch (n.d.). Carbon Market Watch’s recommendations to Article 6 negotiators at SBSTA 60. https://carbonmarketwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/2024-05_CMWs-Article-6-recommendations-for-SBSTA-60.pdf

Chicago

Carbon Market Watch. Carbon Market Watch’s recommendations to Article 6 negotiators at SBSTA 60. n.d. https://carbonmarketwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/2024-05_CMWs-Article-6-recommendations-for-SBSTA-60.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite press release |author=Carbon Market Watch |title=Carbon Market Watch’s recommendations to Article 6 negotiators at SBSTA 60 |url=https://carbonmarketwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/2024-05_CMWs-Article-6-recommendations-for-SBSTA-60.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@misc{carbonmarketwatchndcarbon, author = {{Carbon Market Watch}}, title = {{Carbon Market Watch’s recommendations to Article 6 negotiators at SBSTA 60}}, publisher = {Carbon Market Watch}, url = {https://carbonmarketwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/2024-05_CMWs-Article-6-recommendations-for-SBSTA-60.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }