Carbon Market Watch recommendations to Article 6 negotiators on removals

Carbon Market Watch argues that Article 6.2 and 6.4 mechanisms lack a clear definition of "removals," leading to the risk of including "false solutions." The organization proposes four scientific principles for defining real removals: atmospheric GHG removal, permanent storage (at least 200-300 years), comprehensive accounting of process emissions, and a net-positive removal balance. Based on these, the document asserts that nature-based sequestration and point-source CCS do not qualify as permanent removals. It specifically critiques nature-based activities due to the impossibility of guaranteeing monitoring and liability for reversals over centuries, noting that buffer pools are inadequate. Instead, it suggests nature-based activities generate "Paris Agreement Support Units" to channel finance without allowing offset claims.

• The current guidance for Article 6.2 and rules for Article 6.4 do not define "removals," creating a need for a science-based definition to prevent the inclusion of "low quality removals," which the author asserts are simply not removals.
• To qualify as a real removal, an activity must satisfy four principles: it must remove GHGs from the atmosphere, store them permanently (defined as at least 200-300 years), comprehensively account for all associated upstream and downstream emissions, and result in a total quantity of stored GHGs that exceeds the GHGs emitted during the process.
• Several activities are explicitly identified as not being removals and should be excluded from Article 6: point-source carbon capture and storage (CCS), Direct Air Carbon Capture and Storage (DACCS) used for enhanced oil/gas recovery, and Carbon Capture and Utilization (CCU) with temporary storage such as synthetic fuels.
• Nature-based sequestration is deemed ineligible for permanent removal status because robust monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) and liability for reversals cannot be guaranteed over the required 200-300 year timeframe.
• The use of buffer pools to manage reversal risks in nature-based projects is criticized as inadequate, citing a study where wildfire reversals in California's offset programme eliminated an estimated 95% of buffer pool contributions intended to cover 100 years of risk within only a decade.
• Nature-based activities should be supported under Article 6 but should only generate "Paris Agreement Support Units" (or similar), which allow for climate finance contributions to host parties and communities without permitting the buyer to make offset claims or meet NDCs.

APA

Carbon Market Watch (2022). Carbon Market Watch recommendations to Article 6 negotiators on removals. https://carbonmarketwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/CMW-Art-6-recommendations-on-removals-and-permanence-1.pdf

Chicago

Carbon Market Watch. Carbon Market Watch recommendations to Article 6 negotiators on removals. 2022. https://carbonmarketwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/CMW-Art-6-recommendations-on-removals-and-permanence-1.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite press release |author=Carbon Market Watch |title=Carbon Market Watch recommendations to Article 6 negotiators on removals |date=May 2022 |url=https://carbonmarketwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/CMW-Art-6-recommendations-on-removals-and-permanence-1.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@misc{carbonmarketwatch2022carbon, author = {{Carbon Market Watch}}, title = {{Carbon Market Watch recommendations to Article 6 negotiators on removals}}, publisher = {Carbon Market Watch}, year = {2022}, month = may, url = {https://carbonmarketwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/CMW-Art-6-recommendations-on-removals-and-permanence-1.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }