Search Climate Insights Directory

The briefing argues that Article 6 must be designed to ensure overall emission reductions rather than mere shifting of emissions. It warns against the use of pre-2020 Kyoto Protocol credits and the risk of double counting between national mitigation objectives (NDCs) and schemes like CORSIA. The document advocates for the automatic partial cancellation of credits to move beyond zero-sum offsetting and calls for independent grievance mechanisms to prevent human rights violations seen under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM).

The analysis finds that the potential supply of offset credits from the Clean Development Mechanism, Verified Carbon Standard, Gold Standard, and Climate Action Reserve is approximately 18 billion credits, exceeding anticipated CORSIA demand by more than six times. The authors argue that without robust eligibility restrictions, the scheme will fail to achieve significant additional emissions reductions because over 80 percent of the supply comes from projects likely to continue abatement regardless of credit sales.

The briefing note examines the ongoing negotiations regarding Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, highlighting the risk that poorly designed carbon market and non-market mechanisms could lead to human rights violations. It advocates for the inclusion of rights-based safeguards, meaningful stakeholder consultation (including free, prior, and informed consent for indigenous peoples), and independent grievance redress processes to avoid repeating failures seen in the Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism.

The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) describes the progress at the SB50 talks in Bonn as "glacial," noting that while a non-consensus text for Article 6 was established for COP25, critical language on human rights remains in brackets. CIEL emphasizes that Article 6 mechanisms—which include carbon credit markets and sustainable development mechanisms—must incorporate independent grievance bodies and social safeguards to avoid the failures of the Clean Development Mechanism. The statement also highlights the importance of the Escazú Agreement for environmental democracy in Latin America and condemns countries that questioned the IPCC's Special Report on 1.5°C during the negotiations.

The briefing argues that Article 6 of the Paris Agreement must implement strong accounting rules to prevent double counting of emission reductions, particularly between national mitigation objectives (NDCs) and the CORSIA aviation scheme. It advocates for phasing out 'pure offsetting' in favor of overall emission reductions and warns against the use of old Kyoto Protocol credits after 2020. Additionally, the document emphasizes the need for local stakeholder involvement and independent grievance mechanisms to prevent the human rights violations seen under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM).

The document outlines the legal frameworks and specific entry points within the UNFCCC and Paris Agreement processes where public participation and access to information can be strengthened. It highlights the Aarhus Convention and Escazú Agreement as regional models for environmental democracy and warns that the lack of procedural rights in the Clean Development Mechanism led to harmful projects. The briefing recommends that the new Sustainable Development Mechanism (SDM) under Article 6.4 include robust stakeholder consultation and an independent grievance redress mechanism. It further suggests that the review of the Doha Work Programme and the updating of Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) by 2020 be used to enhance the participation of local communities, indigenous peoples, and women.

The authors examine the 'financialization of nature,' arguing that securitizing ecosystem services creates incentives to maximize a narrow set of commodifiable outputs at the expense of overall ecosystem health. They contend that the fungibility required for financial markets ignores the complex, location-specific nature of ecosystems. While they identify limited exceptions—such as tradable permits for widely-dispersed gases (e.g., CO2 and SOx) and socially responsible investing (SRI) for already-managed lands—they warn that most environmental credits and offsets fail to protect biodiversity or ensure genuine additionality.

The paper assesses the International Civil Aviation Organization's scheme to offset international flight emissions above 2020 levels, concluding that without strict eligibility criteria, the scheme may fail to produce additional emissions reductions. It warns that allowing unlimited credits from existing Clean Development Mechanism projects could result in no new abatement. The author recommends limiting eligibility to new projects or those at risk of discontinuation.

The guide outlines strategies for climate communication in low- and middle-income countries, emphasizing the need to frame climate action as a tool for poverty reduction and sustainable development. It advocates for 'co-production' of knowledge, the use of diverse messengers, and the application of social marketing techniques to drive policy and behavioral change. Key recommendations include using 'demonstration effects' to show tangible resilience solutions, employing data visualization and mapping to make invisible risks visible, and leveraging ICTs to amplify under-represented voices. The document also addresses the importance of scientific accuracy when attributing extreme weather events to climate change and warns against the financial risks of 'stranded assets' in fossil fuel-dependent economies.

The document serves as a practitioner's guide for communicating climate change in developing nations. It emphasizes moving away from scientific jargon toward narratives that highlight the benefits of climate-compatible development, particularly for the poor. The guide outlines strategies for targeting diverse audiences—including governments, businesses, and the general public—and advocates for the use of 'demonstration effects' and data visualization to make climate risks tangible. It includes numerous case studies from Africa, Asia, and Latin America illustrating successful interventions such as participatory mapping, community radio, and the use of 'stranded assets' as a policy framework.

The document outlines a framework for effective climate communication in developing countries, emphasizing the need to link scientific data with local lived experiences. It provides guidance on audience segmentation, the use of 'demonstration effects' for adaptation solutions, and framing mitigation as an economic opportunity. The guide includes numerous case studies from regions such as India, Kenya, Peru, and Bangladesh, illustrating the use of creative tools like participatory theater, citizen mapping, and role-playing games to engage policymakers and marginalized groups.

The document critiques carbon markets, specifically cap-and-trade and offsetting, asserting they fail to reduce global emissions and instead facilitate corporate power and human rights abuses. It highlights the failures of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and REDD, and warns that the negotiation of Article 6 at COP25 could lock in these flawed mechanisms, further delaying urgent emissions cuts at the source.

Carbon Market Watch calls for the inclusion of independent grievance mechanisms and rights-based safeguards in the Article 6 implementation guidelines to prevent the human rights and environmental violations seen under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM).

The document argues that the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) should be terminated by 2020 to prevent it from undermining the Paris Agreement. The authors claim the CDM encourages a 'zero-sum game' that hinders domestic climate action, has increased global emissions due to 'junk' credits, and has led to human rights violations and inequitable benefit distribution.

The document argues that public participation is essential for the effective implementation of climate action, citing IPCC findings that stakeholder engagement increases the likelihood of success. It outlines specific entry points for enhancing procedural rights within the Paris Agreement's framework, including Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), Adaptation Communications, the Transparency Framework, the Global Stocktake, and Article 6 mechanisms. It also emphasizes the need for an independent grievance redress mechanism for the Sustainable Development Mechanism and the operationalization of the Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples Platform to ensure indigenous voices are reflected in the UNFCCC process.

The report evaluates mechanisms to ensure that international carbon market credits under Article 6.4 of the Paris Agreement result in a net reduction of global emissions. It identifies 'automatic cancellation' and 'discounting' as the only options that meet the necessary criteria for overall mitigation, recommending 'automatic cancellation' due to its ease of implementation and precedent in the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). Analysis of 18 scenarios suggests that while costs for credit buyers may increase, the overall mitigation principle provides various benefits for transferring countries across a broad range of rates.

The document argues for a fundamental shift from 'zero-sum offsetting' to a 'results based climate finance' (RBCF) model for the Article 6.4 mechanism. It recommends strict environmental integrity criteria, including a partial cancellation rate for credits and the exclusion of emission removals. To prevent the carry-over of failures from the Kyoto Protocol, it proposes a full re-assessment of existing Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) projects and prohibits the use of pre-2020 units for post-2020 targets. The brief also emphasizes the need for independent governance, a formal grievance mechanism to protect human rights, and mandatory local stakeholder consultations.

The document argues that the Adaptation Fund is a unique and essential part of the international climate finance architecture that requires improved operating modalities to enhance climate resilience. It specifically highlights the insufficiency of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) as a funding source and recommends exploring links to Article 6 of the Paris Agreement alongside diverse new revenue streams like national ETSs and carbon taxes.

The report concludes that the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) largely failed its objectives of producing high-quality, additional emission reductions and promoting sustainable development. It highlights systemic issues such as a lack of environmental integrity, perverse incentives for pollutant production, and the absence of social safeguards. Through four case studies in Uganda, India, Chile, and Guatemala, the document demonstrates how CDM projects led to land grabs, pollution, and the violation of indigenous and community rights. It recommends that post-2020 climate targets should not use CDM credits and that future mechanisms, such as the Sustainable Development Mechanism under the Paris Agreement, must incorporate binding stakeholder consultations and independent grievance mechanisms.

Carbon Market Watch calls for the operationalization of rules for Article 6 that prioritize the avoidance of double counting, a clear end date for the transition from Kyoto Protocol mechanisms, and the implementation of robust human rights and social safeguards to prevent the adverse impacts seen under the Clean Development Mechanism.