Comparison of the Article 6.4 grievance process and the UN Green Climate Fund’s Independent Redress Mechanism

To illustrate the differences between the Article 6.4 grievance process and the UN Green Climate Fund’s Independent Redress Mechanism, we compared these two avenues for remediation with the UN Human Rights Council’s seven effectiveness criteria for grievance mechanisms as outlined in its Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. From this overview, the contrast becomes clear: the Article 6.4 grievance process performs significantly less well on all seven effectiveness criteria. The Article 6.4 Supervisory Body must therefore urgently rethink its approach to this crucial component of the 6.4 mechanism.

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 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.

CMW’s views on Article 6.4 SB’s recommendations to CMA

After much debate and many meetings, the Article 6.4 Supervisory Body concluded its draft recommendations on removals and on methodological requirements on 17 November, and forwarded them for countries’ consideration at COP28. If they are adopted, they will have significant repercussions on how methodologies are developed and on how removal activities would feature in the Article 6.4 market. Whether these …

CMW’s COP28 recommendations to SBSTA on key Article 6 topics

The below table provides CMW’s recommendations concerning key Article 6 topics on which SBSTA is mandated to provide recommendations/guidance for adoption by the CMA at COP28. These recommendations build on a previous set of recommendations CMW had prepared ahead of SB 58. To summarise, for Article 6.2: Sequencing: The 6.2 process should have clearly separated, …

Carbon Market Watch submission on UNFCCC Recognition and Accountability Framework

While Carbon Market Watch welcomes the introduction of UNFCCC guidelines for the net-zero pledges of businesses and other non-state major emitters, these guidelines must be designed to lead to actual accountability of these actors. Clear and ambitious criteria must be set for these net-zero pledges. Moreover, the guidelines cannot leave any room for offsetting as …