Carbon Market Watch response to consultation: “Draft Consensus Statement on High Quality Tropical Forest Carbon Credits”

Carbon Market Watch (CMW) critiques a draft guidance document for companies purchasing tropical forest carbon credits, primarily arguing that the draft implicitly supports 'offsetting'—which CMW deems scientifically inaccurate when substituting fossil carbon with biological carbon. CMW demands the removal of the word 'consensus' from the title, as the draft does not reflect the views of many NGOs and CSOs. The response emphasizes the need for mandatory transparency regarding how much revenue from credit transactions actually reaches indigenous peoples and local communities (IPs and LCs) versus intermediaries. CMW also insists that 'corresponding adjustments' under the Paris Agreement must be mandatory for any claims of emission reductions to prevent double counting.

• The use of the term 'consensus' in the document's title is misleading because the agreement only exists between the eight signatory organisations and does not represent the wider group of NGOs, CSOs, or climate think tanks, many of whom fundamentally oppose forestry credits for offsetting.
• Carbon Market Watch opposes the use of forestry credits for offsetting fossil emissions, stating that biological carbon is non-permanent and scientifically incompatible with fossil carbon, making offsetting claims inaccurate.
• The draft guidance is criticized for failing to address core issues such as corporate claims, double counting, and the lack of transparency regarding the distribution of carbon credit revenue.
• There is a critical lack of transparency regarding carbon credit intermediaries and brokers; CMW argues that corporate buyers should require brokers to disclose the exact share of revenue that reaches the project and local communities.
• CMW argues that the guidance should replace 'should' with 'must' regarding the respect for the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities (IPs and LCs) and the direct distribution of benefits to them.
• To align with the Paris Agreement and prevent double counting, CMW asserts that corresponding adjustments must be required for all transactions where a company claims ownership of emission reductions, including those under the Article 6.4 mechanism.

APA

Carbon Market Watch (2022). Carbon Market Watch response to consultation: “Draft Consensus Statement on High Quality Tropical Forest Carbon Credits”. https://carbonmarketwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/CMW-response-to-_Draft-Consensus-Statement-on-High-Quality-Tropical-Forest-Carbon-Credits.pdf

Chicago

Carbon Market Watch. Carbon Market Watch response to consultation: “Draft Consensus Statement on High Quality Tropical Forest Carbon Credits”. 2022. https://carbonmarketwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/CMW-response-to-_Draft-Consensus-Statement-on-High-Quality-Tropical-Forest-Carbon-Credits.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite press release |author=Carbon Market Watch |title=Carbon Market Watch response to consultation: “Draft Consensus Statement on High Quality Tropical Forest Carbon Credits” |date=15 February 2022 |url=https://carbonmarketwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/CMW-response-to-_Draft-Consensus-Statement-on-High-Quality-Tropical-Forest-Carbon-Credits.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@misc{carbonmarketwatch2022carbon, author = {{Carbon Market Watch}}, title = {{Carbon Market Watch response to consultation: “Draft Consensus Statement on High Quality Tropical Forest Carbon Credits”}}, publisher = {Carbon Market Watch}, year = {2022}, month = feb, url = {https://carbonmarketwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/CMW-response-to-_Draft-Consensus-Statement-on-High-Quality-Tropical-Forest-Carbon-Credits.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }