Submission to the Article 6.4 Supervisory Body on the sustainable development tool

This submission outlines Carbon Market Watch’s recommendations to the Supervisory Body. We recognise that a lot of work has gone into this new version of the draft. Nevertheless, a tool for environmental and social safeguards cannot be accepted when it is merely going in the right direction: it must be a tool that delivers truly robust safeguards. 

CMW’s response to the Article 6.4 Supervisory Body consultation on removal activities and broader methodological rules

Numerous changes are particularly needed in the Supervisory Body’s draft recommendations regarding removal activities, including with regard to the need for: long-term monitoring, a science-based process to determine reversal risk, clarifications on how reversals are remediated, and strengthened safeguards to uphold the rights of Indigenous Peoples. For more information, including Carbon Market Watch’s text proposals, please consult our full submission.

Carbon Market Watch inputs to the Article 6.4 Supervisory Body ahead of its 10th meeting: appeal and grievance processes

Carbon Market Watch welcomes the Call for Input for the annotated agenda and related annexes of the next meeting of the Article 6.4 Supervisory Body. We would hereby like to submit input on A6.4-SB010-AA-A04 – Draft procedure: Appeal and grievance processes under the Article 6.4 mechanism. For a grievance process, it is of utmost importance …

CMW inputs to the Article 6.4 Supervisory Body ahead of its 10th meeting: Operation of the mechanism registry

Before the Article 6.4 Supervisory Body’s 10th meeting from 26 February to 1 March 2024, Carbon Market Watch prepared inputs on the draft document, “Concept note: Operation of the mechanism registry (v01.0)”. The mechanism registry will be a core part of the Article 6 infrastructure, and all activity- and unit-related data must be made accessible to …

CMW inputs to the Article 6.4 Supervisory Body after its 8th meeting: Appeal and grievance processes

For the Article 6.4 grievance process, where it is of utmost importance that it is designed by and with those who will be engaging with it, more input is essential to ensure it works for rather than against its users. Carbon Market Watch urges the Supervisory Body to reopen its Call for Input, as well as to actively seek input from IPLCs and other rightsholders as part of a structured consultation.

COP28: Article 6 failure avoids a worse outcome 

Torn between countries demanding that Article 6 carbon markets be available with virtually no restrictions and countries insisting on upholding transparency, human rights, and climate ambition, negotiators at COP28 failed to break the deadlock. With all the unresolved problematic issues, the fact that they reached no deal was better than agreeing to a bad one that would torpedo the Paris Agreement.