The Article 6.4 Supervisory Body aims to adopt the sustainable development (SD) tool at its next meeting in September/October. This tool is the main instrument to safeguard environmental, ecological and human rights, including the rights of Indigenous People.
Maintaining the incentive to decarbonise should be the guiding principle of the UK ETS, ensuring covered emissions go to zero or near zero. The integration of carbon removals in the ETS, even if gradual, goes against this proposition, and is incompatible with the science, for a number of reasons.
Carbon Market Watch gives specific feedback to rules considering a Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification (MRV) system for non-CO2 aviation effects, and deplores the serious weakening of the commitments compared to earlier rules.
There is no way around it: the EU LULUCF carbon sink is shrinking. Carbon Market Watch recommends three key areas for improvement in the next revision of the LULUCF Regulation
Carbon Market Watch supports a scientifically sound and environmentally integer use of permanent CCU in industry and under the EU ETS Directive to incentivise its deployment and obtain additional emissions reductions. To achieve this goal, it is essential to design incentives correctly and avoid incentivising carbon lock-in (or even increased use of fossil fuels).
Carbon Market Watch has prepared a set of recommendations for Article 6 negotiators ahead of the UNFCCC climate change conference taking place in Bonn from 3-13 June 2024 (SB 60).
Carbon Market Watch welcomes the opportunity to submit input to India’s Central Consumer Protection Authority’s draft guidelines on greenwashing.
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.
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.
This submission outlines Carbon Market Watch’s recommendations to the Article 6.4 Supervisory Body, as well as a comparison of the Independent Redress Mechanism of the Green Climate Fund with the current draft appeal and grievance processes.
Stay in touch and receive our monthly newsletter, campaign updates, event invites and more.
