Carbon Market Watch’s input on the UK Government’s proposed framework for voluntary carbon and nature markets

Carbon Market Watch (CMW) opposes the UK government's proposed reliance on market-based mechanisms and the VCMI Scope 3 Action Code of Practice, arguing that allowing carbon credits to 'close scope 3 emissions gaps' effectively legitimises offsetting and risks rewarding 'climate laggards'. CMW advocates for a 'contribution' or 'beyond value chain mitigation' (BVCM) model over offsetting and insetting, and suggests that the UK's Environmental Reporting Guidelines (ERG) should mandate, rather than encourage, the disclosure of carbon credit information. The document also recommends 'temperature-alignment claims' (specifically referencing 1.5°C) as a more precise alternative to 'Paris alignment' claims.

• Carbon Market Watch opposes the UK government's potential endorsement of the VCMI’s Scope 3 Action Code of Practice, asserting that it risks disincentivising the decarbonisation of corporate value chains and rewards companies that are slow to act on climate change.
• The VCMI Scope 3 Action Code of Practice is criticised for allowing companies to retire carbon credits to bridge 'emissions gaps' up to 25% of their total scope 3 emissions trajectory until 2040, which CMW argues is a misleading practice that treats unrelated mitigation as comparable to value chain decarbonisation.
• CMW argues that the VCMI framework's 2040 phase-out date and its 'carbon budget approach'—which allows an annual off-track threshold of 40%—enable companies to increase Scope 3 emissions substantially in the short term while still claiming compliance.
• The document rejects the concept of 'insetting', describing it as a rebranded form of offsetting that leads to low credibility claims, double counting of emission reductions, and issues with verification independence.
• CMW recommends that the UK government adopt 'temperature-alignment claims' with a specific reference to 1.5°C instead of 'Paris alignment' claims, as the latter is considered too vague and potentially allows for lower ambition (2°C).
• Regarding the UK's Environmental Reporting Guidelines (ERG), CMW suggests that the current 'should' language regarding the disclosure of carbon credit details be changed to a mandatory 'shall' or 'must' requirement.
• The document advocates for the 'contribution' or 'beyond value chain mitigation' (BVCM) model, where companies finance climate initiatives without claiming to neutralise or compensate for their own emissions.

APA

Carbon Market Watch (2025). Carbon Market Watch’s input on the UK Government’s proposed framework for voluntary carbon and nature markets. https://carbonmarketwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/July-2025_CMW-input-on-UK-framework-for-voluntary-carbon-and-nature-markets.pdf

Chicago

Carbon Market Watch. Carbon Market Watch’s input on the UK Government’s proposed framework for voluntary carbon and nature markets. 2025. https://carbonmarketwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/July-2025_CMW-input-on-UK-framework-for-voluntary-carbon-and-nature-markets.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite press release |author=Carbon Market Watch |title=Carbon Market Watch’s input on the UK Government’s proposed framework for voluntary carbon and nature markets |date=10 July 2025 |url=https://carbonmarketwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/July-2025_CMW-input-on-UK-framework-for-voluntary-carbon-and-nature-markets.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@misc{carbonmarketwatch2025carbon, author = {{Carbon Market Watch}}, title = {{Carbon Market Watch’s input on the UK Government’s proposed framework for voluntary carbon and nature markets}}, publisher = {Carbon Market Watch}, year = {2025}, month = jul, url = {https://carbonmarketwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/July-2025_CMW-input-on-UK-framework-for-voluntary-carbon-and-nature-markets.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }