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.

© Dr. Paulo Brando

Quality assessment of REDD+ carbon credit projects

The report is focused on the four crediting methodologies that have generated almost all REDD+ carbon credits to date, all under Verra, the largest voluntary carbon market registry, and concludes that REDD+ is ill-suited to carbon crediting.

Inputs to structured consultation on removal activities (Article 6.4 of the Paris Agreement)

Carbon Market Watch welcomes the opportunity to provide inputs to the Supervisory Body on specific questions pertaining to removal activities. However, we note that the 2-week window to make submissions is extremely short and also overlaps with SB58, which many observer organisations that closely follow the Supervisory Body have attended – as a result, there …