Carbon Market Watch’s views on the Article 6.4 Supervisory Body’s recommendations for COP28

Report an error

Summary

AI-generated

This summary is written by a language model reading the source document. It is not the publisher's words and is not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment

Carbon Market Watch advises the CMA against adopting the Supervisory Body's text on removals under the Article 6.4 mechanism without further guidance to ensure environmental integrity. The organization calls for stricter definitions of removal durability, the creation of a science-based risk assessment tool, mandatory post-crediting monitoring, and clear rules on avoidable reversals and buffer pool replenishment. Regarding methodology development, it suggests requiring proponents to prove carbon credit revenues were a significant income source and conducting additionality analyses for different activity types.

Key insights

AI-generated

These insights are written by a language model reading the source document. They are not the publisher's words and are not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment
  • Carbon Market Watch argues that the Supervisory Body's text on removals lacks sufficient detail to guarantee environmental integrity and should not be adopted by the CMA unless further guidance is provided.
  • For removal activities under Article 6.4, the organization recommends establishing a mandatory risk assessment tool based on peer-reviewed science that considers geographical context and climate change impacts, and defining a minimum durability for storage while excluding short-term reservoirs.
  • The document proposes strict rules for monitoring and reversals, including a minimum post-crediting monitoring period and a requirement that any 6.4ERs from activities with missing or incomplete monitoring reports be deemed reversed and categorized as avoidable reversals.
  • Regarding the buffer pool, Carbon Market Watch suggests that proponents must fully replenish the pool at their own expense for avoidable reversals and that unused buffer ERs should be automatically cancelled after the monitoring period.
  • On the development of Article 6.4 mechanism methodologies, the organization recommends that proponents demonstrate carbon credit revenues were a significant income source before implementation and that an analysis of additionality likelihood for different activity types be conducted.

Cite the original document

APA
Carbon Market Watch (n.d.). Carbon Market Watch’s views on the Article 6.4 Supervisory Body’s recommendations for COP28. https://carbonmarketwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/CMWs-views-on-Article-6.4-SBs-recommendations-to-CMA-1.pdf
Chicago
Carbon Market Watch. Carbon Market Watch’s views on the Article 6.4 Supervisory Body’s recommendations for COP28. n.d. https://carbonmarketwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/CMWs-views-on-Article-6.4-SBs-recommendations-to-CMA-1.pdf.
Wikipedia
{{cite press release |author=Carbon Market Watch |title=Carbon Market Watch’s views on the Article 6.4 Supervisory Body’s recommendations for COP28 |url=https://carbonmarketwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/CMWs-views-on-Article-6.4-SBs-recommendations-to-CMA-1.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}
BibTeX
@misc{carbonmarketwatchndcarbon, author = {{Carbon Market Watch}}, title = {{Carbon Market Watch’s views on the Article 6.4 Supervisory Body’s recommendations for COP28}}, publisher = {Carbon Market Watch}, url = {https://carbonmarketwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/CMWs-views-on-Article-6.4-SBs-recommendations-to-CMA-1.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }

Full text

Collected · Record updated