International Environment and Threat Action (IETA) and United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) express concern over the potential future of nature-based carbon removal methods under the draft standard of Article 6.4

International Environment and Threat Action (IETA) and United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) express concern over the potential future of nature-based carbon removal methods under the draft standard of Article 6.4

The proposed standard for carbon projects under the United Nations' climate change body, known as the Paris Agreement Crediting Mechanism (PACM), has been met with criticism from carbon market experts.

The draft standard, titled "Addressing non-permanence / reversal", was published on 15 July and closed for submissions on Monday. If approved in its current form, the standard could redirect climate finance away from nature-based solutions, undermining efforts to achieve global climate targets.

The International Emissions Trading Association (IETA) has expressed concern over the draft standard, stating it contains "a number of serious issues" that could exclude land-based carbon removal activities. Carbon Markets Watch supported the first option in the draft standard but criticized the second option for containing many shortcomings and inconsistencies with existing guidance.

Criticisms of the Proposed Standard

1. Stringent Requirements: The draft standard includes stringent rules for monitoring, reporting, and verification activities over many years. These requirements are seen as overly burdensome for nature-based projects, such as forest conservation initiatives, which might not be able to meet these standards and thus could be excluded from earning carbon credits.
2. Conflict Over Participation Rules: The standard proposes two options for regulating carbon projects. The first is more stringent and is backed by most of the Methodological Expert Panel (MEP), while the second aims to allow more equal participation between technological and land-based projects. However, both options are criticized for potentially undermining nature-based solutions.
3. Nature-Based Solutions' Viability: Experts like Gabriel Labbate argue that the proposed conditions could render forest-based projects "practically unviable," which would hinder efforts to advance decarbonization using nature-based methods.

Impact on Nature-Based Solutions

• Exclusion and Limited Recognition: The strict requirements could lead to the exclusion of nature-based solutions from the carbon market, limiting their recognition and support under the Paris Agreement. This would significantly reduce the potential for these projects to contribute to global carbon reduction efforts.
• Inadequate Support for Forest Conservation: Despite the importance of forest conservation in carbon sequestration, stringent standards could make it difficult for these projects to thrive, potentially exacerbating deforestation and loss of biodiversity.
• Challenges in Implementation: The jurisdictional approach to forest carbon programs, which involves large-scale interventions, faces challenges in implementation, including ensuring fair compensation and integrating indigenous communities.

Conclusion

The proposed standard for carbon projects under the UN's climate change body is criticized for its potential to marginalize nature-based solutions, which are crucial for meeting global carbon reduction targets. Addressing these concerns is essential to ensure that these solutions remain viable under the Paris Agreement and contribute effectively to global decarbonization efforts.

Over a hundred organizations, including the environment ministries of Brazil, Peru, Nigeria, and other developing countries, have submitted responses to the UNFCCC's call for input. The latest draft standard aims to address the risk of reversals or non-permanence of carbon projects, ensuring that carbon removals are resilient and of high-integrity. However, the concerns raised by carbon market experts necessitate careful consideration to ensure the standard supports, rather than hinders, nature-based solutions.

1. The proposed "Addressing non-permanence / reversal" standard for carbon projects under the Paris Agreement Crediting Mechanism (PACM) has sparked concerns within carbon market experts, as its stringent requirements may exclude nature-based solutions like forest conservation initiatives from earning carbon credits.
2. The draft standard, if approved, could redirect climate finance away from nature-based solutions, potentially undermining efforts to achieve global climate targets, in line with the United Nation's Sustainable Development Goals (SDG).
3. The standard's two proposed options for regulating carbon projects, although discussed by the Methodological Expert Panel (MEP), have received criticism for their potential to undermine nature-based solutions, such as land-based carbon removal activities.
4. Failure to address concerns regarding the standard's impact on nature-based solutions could lead to the exclusion of these solutions from the carbon market, significantly reducing their recognition and support under the Paris Agreement and impacting global general news related to climate policy and legislation, politics, and finance.
5. Policymakers must consider these criticisms and make necessary adjustments to the draft standard to ensure it supports, rather than hinders, nature-based solutions, promoting effective carbon sequestration through forest conservation initiatives and enhancing efforts to combat climate change on a global scale.

Read also: