Search Climate Insights Directory

A group of Brazilian and international organizations opposes the approval of Plantar S.A.'s CDM project, "Cultivated Biomass as a Renewable Source of Energy for Pig Iron Production". The authors argue that the project lacks additionality because the company has already been planting eucalyptus since 2000 and that the operations cause significant environmental degradation and social injustices, including the displacement of indigenous and peasant communities.

The briefing argues that the draft Article 6.4 Appeal and Grievance Procedure (AGP) is inadequate compared to the Green Climate Fund's Independent Redress Mechanism (IRM). Using seven UN Human Rights Council effectiveness criteria, the author finds the AGP lacks legitimacy, accessibility, predictability, equitability, transparency, rights compatibility, and a mechanism for continuous learning. Key deficiencies include potential filing fees, English-only submissions, a lack of retaliation safeguards, and the absence of independent reviews.

Carbon Market Watch argues that the Central Consumer Protection Authority should explicitly ban "carbon neutral" and offsetting claims rather than merely requiring their substantiation. The organization contends that offsetting is fundamentally flawed due to quantification uncertainties, lack of permanence in biological sinks, and consumer misunderstanding. Instead, it proposes a "contribution" or "beyond value chain mitigation" (BVCM) model. The submission also recommends stricter requirements for future climate targets, including science-based commitments, full scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions disclosure, and alignment of corporate lobbying with the Paris Agreement.

The document critiques the draft methodology for energy efficiency in household cooking, arguing that while it improves upon the legacy AMS-II.G methodology, it still contains critical flaws regarding the fraction of non-renewable biomass (fNRB), usage rate reporting, and the frequency of Kitchen Performance Tests (KPTs). Carbon Market Watch advocates for the exclusive use of Ghilardi & Bailis 2024 values for fNRB, a 50% cap on survey-only usage reporting, and annual or quarterly KPTs to prevent over-crediting.

Carbon Market Watch (CMW) argues that the draft fNRB methodological tool lacks conservativeness and accuracy because it deviates from the MoFuSS model and Ghilardi & Bailis (2024) data. CMW recommends adopting the full set of MoFuSS-derived default values, including urban-specific data and accounting for fuel imports, to prevent the over-crediting of carbon offsets.

The report finds that EU member states are failing to responsibly govern negative emissions, often relying on vulnerable land-based sinks that are declining due to climate impacts. It highlights a systemic lack of separate, binding targets for permanent CDR and a failure to clearly define 'residual emissions' that CDR is intended to balance. While some countries like Sweden and Germany have initiated research or funding for bio-CCS, the report argues that most plans lack feasibility assessments and conflate permanent removals with fossil-fuel-related carbon capture and storage (CCS).

Carbon Market Watch argues that current Article 6.2 rules are too minimal, creating a "Wild West framework" for international carbon markets. The briefing recommends mandatory authorisation statements for cooperative approaches, stricter definitions of 'first transfer' to prevent delayed reporting, and the prohibition of authorisation revocations to avoid double counting. For Article 6.4, it urges the CMA to provide guidance to the Supervisory Body on minimum durability standards for removals, science-based risk assessments for reversals, and more robust additionality requirements, including mandatory common practice analysis.

The document is a reporting guide designed to help companies transparently communicate their beyond value chain mitigation (BVCM) strategies. It is intended as a complement to existing frameworks like the CDP Climate Change 2023 Questionnaire and CSRD ESRS E1, rather than a standalone report. The template requires companies to disclose financial investments in BVCM, the specific activities supported, the quality of their engagement—including considerations of climate justice and additionality—and how they communicate these actions to stakeholders to avoid misleading claims.

This guide by Carbon Market Watch establishes a reporting framework for companies to disclose their beyond value chain mitigation (BVCM) activities. It emphasizes that BVCM claims must be predicated on demonstrated climate leadership, including deep internal decarbonization and Paris-aligned policy engagement. The template requires detailed financial data on BVCM investments, the nature of the activities supported, and the quality of engagement regarding climate justice and additionality.

The report details a workshop in Cameroon that led to the creation of the Réseau Afrique Carbone & Changement Climatique (RAC3), a network designed to amplify African civil society voices in carbon market negotiations. It highlights the historical under-representation of Africa in the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and discusses the potential benefits of 'vintage restrictions' under the new Sustainable Development Mechanism (SDM) to encourage new projects. The event also addressed the role of African NGOs in monitoring the environmental integrity of aviation offsets under CORSIA and noted the need for increased advocacy to raise ambition regarding aviation emission reductions in Cameroon.

The document argues that current implementations of Article 6.2 lack coherence and transparency, citing examples like Guyana's use of ART TREES HFLD methodology to issue credits that may not represent real emission reductions. Carbon Market Watch recommends a 'reset' of talks to prioritize rigorous safeguards, the exclusion of emission avoidance activities from both Article 6.2 and 6.4, and the establishment of a strict sequencing process where ITMOs cannot be transferred until a review is complete. It further calls for a detailed Agreed Electronic Format (AEF) for public reporting and the prohibition of authorization revocations after ITMO transfer to prevent double counting.

Carbon Market Watch outlines ten key elements for effective carbon pricing, arguing that such systems must be integrated into a broader policy mix, utilize absolute declining caps, and eliminate free allocations and offsets. The briefing emphasizes the need for transparency, the reinvestment of revenues into climate action and vulnerable communities, and the use of carbon border levies to prevent leakage without protecting polluting industries. It concludes that carbon pricing is a tool to be used alongside regulations and democratic engagement, rather than a standalone solution for decarbonization.

The report examines the uneven progress of carbon pricing in Asia, contrasting the advanced emissions trading systems (ETS) in Japan and South Korea with the early-stage designs in Vietnam, Indonesia, and the Philippines. It argues that while the EU CBAM poses a financial risk to exporters—particularly in the steel sector—the overall impact is limited and can be mitigated by implementing effective domestic carbon pricing and transitioning to cleaner production technologies. The document provides specific fee estimates for each country and recommends phasing out carbon offsets, implementing absolute emission caps, and shifting toward the auctioning of allowances to drive genuine decarbonisation.

The report analyzes how the EU chemical sector has avoided the costs of carbon pollution through free allowances under the EU ETS, noting that 98% of emissions since 2013 were covered. It highlights that the sector remains a major emitter, with emissions increasing in 2024, and that the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) currently only covers a small fraction of the industry. The author argues that this system protects polluters and hinders decarbonization, specifically citing BASF as an example of a company receiving more allowances than it needs while opposing carbon costs. The report recommends a clear phase-out timeline for free allowances, more ambitious benchmarking, and the introduction of decarbonization conditionalities.

The 73rd CDM Executive Board meeting resulted in a revised rule for E- policies, a new work programme for standardized baselines, and updated methodologies for N2O destruction in nitric acid plants. The Board also endorsed a work programme to standardize additionality assessments for appliances and waste management.

A joint statement from NGOs (GLOBAL 2000, WWF, VCÖ) to the Austrian Environment Minister calling for the EU's Effort Sharing Regulation (ESR) to be revised with higher emission reduction targets, updated baselines, and the closure of forestry and ETS loopholes to meet Paris Agreement goals.

The briefing examines the impact of aviation emissions and the failure of international measures, specifically CORSIA, to align with the Paris Agreement. It details the 'stop-the-clock' derogation that paused EU ETS enforcement for flights entering and leaving Europe and warns that continuing this exemption risks the EU's 2030 climate targets and increases the oversupply of emission allowances.

Carbon Market Watch argues for stringent rules to prevent double counting, 'hot air' credits, and the inclusion of REDD-plus in carbon markets. It advocates for a 'net atmospheric benefit' through discounting, the establishment of a share of proceeds for adaptation and loss and damage, and the integration of a human rights-based approach into the core agreement to protect vulnerable populations.

Carbon Market Watch argues that current corporate net-zero claims are often vague and lack sufficient action, frequently excluding scope 3 emissions and relying excessively on offsets. The organization proposes a rigorous framework for net-zero targets that requires full-scope emission coverage, absolute reduction targets, and transparency regarding lobbying activities. It suggests that the UN facilitate a standardized global repository for reporting and advocates for a transition from voluntary actions to strict international and national regulations to prevent greenwashing.

Carbon Market Watch argues that a Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) is preferable to the free allocation of allowances in the EU ETS, provided it is implemented without double protection. The organization recommends that CBAM cover cement, steel, chemicals, and power, and that its revenues be primarily disbursed as climate grants to developing countries. It further suggests that Least Developed Countries and Small Island Developing States be exempted from CBAM obligations to uphold the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities.