Why UN REDD+ and Article 6 carbon markets are incompatible

False friends: Why UN REDD+ and Article 6 carbon markets are incompatible

As the line increasingly blurs between UN REDD+ and Article 6.2 carbon markets, this briefing sets the record straight. This comparison demonstrates that these two systems do not serve the same purpose and do not have comparable quality requirements. Urgent finance is needed for forest conservation, but Article 6.2 carbon markets are not the way.

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 …