Objections raised by several blocs over the wording of the text
Speakers onstage during the Global Climate Action High-Level Event (closing): Uniting on the Pathway to 2030 and Beyond at the UN Climate Change Conference COP28 at Expo City Dubai on December 11, 2023, in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. (Photo by COP28 / Christopher Pike) Countries have yet to reach common ground on discussions to set up a global carbon market on the penultimate day of the 28th Conference of Parties (COP28) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
The global carbon market will be established under Article 6.4 of the Paris Agreement. It will allow the trading of carbon credits generated by the emissions reduction or removal of greenhouse gas emissions from the atmosphere. Carbon removal projects can be nature-based, which uses forests, mangroves, and agricultural soil to capture and store carbon or technology-based solutions such as deploying big machines to such carbon dioxide.
Under 6.4, entities that develop an emission reduction or removal project need to submit their proposal to the Supervisory Body. Once approved, these projects can earn carbon credits, which represent 1 tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent. These credits can be bought by countries, companies, or even individuals to reach their climate targets.
Many Parties raised objections to the latest draft of the negotiating text on Article 6.4 released on December 11. The text asked the Supervisory Body — a 12-member panel tasked with overseeing the carbon market mechanisms — to elaborate and develop clear guidance and definitions and make necessary amendments.
The United States, during an informal session held shortly after the release of the text, called for the deletion of reference to “make amendments”.
The other issue raised was the definition of removals. Blocs such as the African Group, the European Union, and Russia said they did not want the supervisory body to revisit the definition of removals. “The definitions were addressed by the Supervisory Body. We would support eliminating that from the text,” Russia said.
The Supervisory Body defines removals as outcomes of processes that “remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere through anthropogenic activities and destroy or durably store them”.
However, civil society groups have pointed out that the definition of removals given by the supervisory body is far from perfect. At COP27, the definition provided by the supervisory body was also criticised.
The new definition has loopholes. For instance, “there is still no information on durability and timeframe — the amount of time needed to store carbon dioxide,” Jonathan Crook, policy expert at Carbon Market Watch, told Down To Earth (DTE).
Further, Parties have not yet approved recommendations provided by the Supervisory Body on removals and standards for methodologies. “There are still many disagreements. It’s unclear how they will resolve it,” Crook told DTE.
The European Union strongly reacted to the draft text. “We need to send a strong signal that carbon markets can contribute and close the gap we face. The text is not sending a strong signal,” the EU negotiator said.
The EU further stated that standards on methodologies are ambitious, clear, and fit for purpose, but removal guidance in its current state is not ready to be applied yet.
There were other debates as well. Mexico raised concerns over the inclusion of respecting national prerogatives while pursuing inclusivity, including Indigenous Peoples and local communities, technical experts, the private sector, and scientific and academic communities.
Mexico called for the deletion of “respecting national prerogatives”. This was opposed by a few blocs such as the Arab Group, Egypt, and the African Group.
“The text was trying to operationalise Article 6.4. But some parties had concerns over it. The text will be rewritten and discussed later. The timeframe is not clear,” Injy Johnstone, research associate in Net Zero Aligned Offsetting, told DTE.
We are a voice to you; you have been a support to us. Together we build journalism that is independent, credible and fearless. You can further help us by making a donation. This will mean a lot for our ability to bring you news, perspectives and analysis from the ground so that we can make change together.
.png)
Comments are moderated and will be published only after the site moderator’s approval. Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name. Selected comments may also be used in the ‘Letters’ section of the Down To Earth print edition.