Carbon markets at the UNFCCC – COP26 and Article 6

The document critiques the negotiations surrounding Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, specifically the market-based approaches in paragraphs 6.2 and 6.4. It argues that these mechanisms allow developed nations to avoid direct emission reductions and fail to provide necessary public finance to the global South. The author highlights risks such as double counting, lack of environmental integrity, and human rights abuses, including land grabbing and displacement of Indigenous Peoples. Friends of the Earth International advocates for the rejection of carbon markets in favor of non-market approaches (Article 6.8) and direct, grant-based public finance from Northern governments to Southern countries.

• Carbon markets are viewed as a tool for climate inaction that allows corporations and Northern governments to maintain fossil fuel-based economies by using offsets that do not actually stop emissions.
• Article 6.2, which governs internationally transferred mitigation outcomes (ITMOs), lacks legally binding targets, meaning there is no established supply, demand, or price to justify a market.
• Technical disputes regarding Article 6.2 include the risk of 'double counting'—where credits are used in multiple jurisdictions—and the need for 'corresponding adjustments' to prevent emission increases beyond Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs).
• Article 6.4 seeks to establish a successor to the Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), but the author argues that without emission reduction obligations for developed countries, there is no incentive to fund reductions in the global South.
• Market-based approaches are criticized for causing social and environmental harm, including corporate abuse, forced relocation, and 'cultural genocide' of Indigenous Peoples and local communities.
• The document advocates for Article 6.8, which focuses on non-market approaches (NMAs) that integrate adaptation and mitigation with poverty eradication, though developed countries are accused of blocking its implementation to avoid scaling up support.
• Developed countries are split on the flexibility of rules: the EU seeks strong rules to align with its own emissions trading scheme but rejects mandatory overall emission reductions (OMGE), while the US favors greater rule flexibility.

APA

Stabinsky, D. (2021). Carbon markets at the UNFCCC – COP26 and Article 6. Friends of the Earth International. https://www.foei.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Briefing_Carbon-Markets-COP26_English.pdf

Chicago

Stabinsky, Doreen. Carbon markets at the UNFCCC – COP26 and Article 6. Friends of the Earth International, 2021. https://www.foei.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Briefing_Carbon-Markets-COP26_English.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Stabinsky |first1=Doreen |title=Carbon markets at the UNFCCC – COP26 and Article 6 |publisher=Friends of the Earth International |date=October 2021 |url=https://www.foei.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Briefing_Carbon-Markets-COP26_English.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{stabinsky2021carbon, author = {Stabinsky, Doreen}, title = {{Carbon markets at the UNFCCC – COP26 and Article 6}}, institution = {Friends of the Earth International}, year = {2021}, month = oct, url = {https://www.foei.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Briefing_Carbon-Markets-COP26_English.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }