As COP29 enters its second week – what exactly did the first deliver? Well, the verdict from some groups is not a lot. In fact, looking at the detail it seems that actually, the meeting of parties was little more than greenwashing for carbon markets while the climate crisis rages on.
COP29: only delivering on greenwashing?
In the weeks leading up to COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan, the presidency signaled its strong commitment to finalise negotiations on Article 6 international carbon markets, which had previously collapsed at COP27 in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt in 2022 and at COP28 in Dubai in 2023.
At its meeting in October, the Supervisory Body (SBM) mandated to create the rules for the new Article 6.4 carbon market mechanism, finalised its standards on methodologies and on activities related to removals and, in an unprecedented move, claimed that the standards immediately took effect and went into force.
Rumors that the COP Presidency would rush through those new rules immediately proved true when on the very first day of COP29, the CMA, the UN body that takes decisions under the Paris Agreement, rubber-stamped the SBM’s standards.
Markets moving forward while other negotiating areas remain stuck, plus a reference to voluntary markets in the current NCQG (New Collective Quantified Goal) text, raises the specter of a COP that only delivers on greenwashing.
Kelly Stone, CLARA Network Coordinator and Senior Policy Analyst for ActionAid USA, said:
This was an unprecedented abdication of authority and responsibility. Allowing the Supervisory Body to move their standards forward with a procedural trick is an unacceptable giveaway of power and responsibility to an unelected and unaccountable entity.
Governments must reassert their authority and protect front-line communities.
SBSTA Article 6.2 and 6.4 negotiations deadlocked; moved to this week
Despite the COP Presidency’s success in approving the standards set by the Article 6.4 Supervisory Body, negotiations on Article 6.2 and 6.4 under the SBSTA deadlocked last week and will be taken up again in week two.
6.2
6.2 negotiations under the SBSTA proved to be fairly stuck in the first week. While the text produced at week’s end will be the basis for further negotiation, it was sent forward with no consensus.
The key sticking points are the registry (the entity where trades are registered) and a collection of points that could tighten the extremely loose 6.2 trading framework.
The US and some other countries insist that the 6.2 registry can only reflect data instead of hold units, meaning that countries must either develop their own functioning registry or use those from the voluntary carbon markets. This significantly disadvantages those countries without the means to set up their own registry.
Several countries wanting to improve 6.2 guidance have proposed text options to obtain upfront information and detailed reporting and consequences for non-compliance. But these options have been watered down or have disappeared completely. Still some countries push back at even the most marginal requests for transparency or accountability.
Information about countries’ actions under 6.2 could come years after it has set up its activity. Moreover, when that information is reviewed and shortcomings or omissions are found, nothing can stop a country from trading the flawed units it has issued.
6.4
In 6.4 negotiations under the SBSTA, the issues to be ironed out on authorisations and transfers from the registry were mostly technical and did not cause major controversy. Still, consensus was not reached.
In 6.4 negotiations under the CMA, a contact group met only once and will continue this week to discuss further guidance on some of the methodologies and removals standards adopted by the Supervisory Body. It is essential that major loopholes in the 6.4 mechanism are closed but the first draft of this guidance looks too weak to do so.
Isa Mulder, Policy Expert, Carbon Market Watch, said of 6.2 and 6.4:
Week two is setting up to be difficult for Article 6 carbon markets. While a large number of countries ask for more ambition, the window of opportunity to get this done is narrowing. It is essential that the involvement of ministers and high-level negotiators does not result in significant quality compromises for the sake of a deal.
Article 6.8 Work programme for non-market approaches moves into second phase
While some standards for carbon markets advanced last week, Parties on Friday agreed to a set of activities for the second phase of the Article 6.8 work programme for non-market approaches to assist countries in implementing their national determined contributions (NDCs).
Article 6.8 can support a broad scope of initiatives for climate finance, mitigation, ambition, and ecological integrity, none of which will involve the transfer of mitigation outcomes through offsetting and the generation of carbon credits for trading.
Although finance to support Article 6.8 non-market approaches is still nowhere to be found, a proposal from the Like-Minded Developing Countries and Bolivia will go forward that “recognises the importance of integrated, holistic and balanced non-market approaches… including ‘Mother Earth Centric Actions’” such as:
- Ensuring the integrity of all ecosystems and the conservation of biodiversity when addressing climate change.
- Enhancing different value systems, including for living in balance and harmony with Mother Earth, as recognised by some cultures, in the context of addressing climate change.
Souparna Lahiri, Senior Climate and Biodiversity Policy Advisor at the Global Forest Coalition, said:
The text decided confirms what CLARA has been advocating for years: there are genuine barriers to rapid implementation of non-market approaches, but unlocking the full potential of Article 6.8 will help Parties raise ambition in their NDCs, which carbon markets cannot. The true potential of Article 6.8 cannot be achieved without global south countries uniting against the cabal of rich countries blocking progress.
Overarching risk assessment on carbon markets is needed now that rules are in place
Members of the Climate Land Ambition and Rights Alliance (CLARA) are concerned that rules are being created without regard for the risks and impacts of carbon markets and other Article 6 activities.
According to research published last week in the journal Nature which analysed one-fifth of the carbon credit volume issued to date (almost one billion tons of CO2e), less than 16% of the carbon credits issued to the investigated projects constitute real emission reductions.
The aim of Article 6 activities is to improve international cooperation to enhance global mitigation efforts, yet, to date, no holistic, scientific risk and impact assessment has been done on planned Article 6 activities under the rules that have been constructed. CLARA members are strongly urging governments to undertake social, environmental and legal risk and impact assessments across entire portfolios where these rules are in place.
COP29: the time for offsets for carbon markets is over
Jannes Stoppel, Political Advisor for Biodiversity and Climate Policy at Greenpeace, said of the carbon markets furore:
Expanding the potential to compensate for climate destroying emissions here at COP29 is a slap in the face to those who have survived extreme weather events around the world. Leaders can’t offset themselves out of the climate crisis.
It’s their responsibility to reduce emissions now, in all sectors, to mitigate breakdown of climate tipping points. Nobody knows what the weak rules being developed here, under the influence of thousands of fossil fuel and abatement technology lobbyists, will mean.
Trading carbon budgets instead of reducing emissions is a dangerous gamble against time we don’t have. Really, the time for offsets is over.
Featured image via the Canary
By The Canary
This post was originally published on Canary.