High-level ministers have finally arrived in Glasgow and are discussing Article 6. Hooray! Surely they’ve been paying attention to all of ECO’s asks, and will quickly agree on an extremely robust Article 6 package! Right? Except, well, that’s not quite what we’re hearing…
Obviously it can be hard to tell what’s happening behind closed doors in ministerial discussions that observers are largely excluded from, but fear not! ECO has its ways, and has been privy to some of the deals that are currently being hashed out.
ECO would normally joke about the absurdity of some of the options on the table, but we are increasingly very worried that ministers are actually willing to compromise on grave issues… like whether corresponding adjustments should apply to all Article 6 transactions or not.
ECO really wished it wouldn’t need to spend its time explaining why double counting, including double claiming, is a monster. However, some Parties are strongly lobbying to drop corresponding adjustments from being applied to “other international mitigation purposes” (OIMP).
ECO heard that it’s coming from you, US and Japan, and that the COP Presidency, Brazil and others are keenly embracing it. ECO hopes that’s not true. And apparently this proposal is worryingly gaining traction among ministers.
Excluding corresponding adjustments from being applied to “other international mitigation purposes” allows an emission reduction to be counted by both the country where the reduction took place and by a private company financing it. So how do you know that the reduction paid for by the private company is not simply replacing another reduction that the host country was going to achieve anyway to reach its NDC? Well, you don’t, and that’s a major problem.
This compromise would create a massive greenwashing machine whereby private companies are allowed to brand themselves as carbon neutral, even though there is no certainty that they have really paid for extra reductions (setting aside all the other issues around offsetting which ECO is clearly not a fan of).
If companies want to pay for reductions and help countries meet their NDCs, that’s great. But they must call it what it is: results-based finance. These non-adjusted credits cannot be used to claim carbon neutrality or any other misleading green claims. The bottom line is: either corresponding adjustments are applied, or the credits cannot be recognised for offsetting/compensation and must only be described as climate finance support.
ECO fears that, amid widespread pressure to finalise a deal, ministers who have been quickly and selectively briefed on complex Article 6 issues are seeking quick and dubious compromises without considering, or caring about, the real-world impacts of these hurriedly concluded deals.
| Human rights shall not be traded off The UK Presidency and some big polluters want the negotiations on Article 6 to be concluded in Glasgow, but we are here to remind Parties: no rights, no deal. The current proposals on the table fail to adequately protect human rights and Indigenous Peoples’ rights, for example by excluding the important requirement of Free, Prior and Informed Consent. As if this wasn’t enough, the lack of an independent grievance mechanism denies communities impacted by these harmful projects their right to justice and redress. The absence of these provisions led to blatant human rights abuses in relation to projects implemented in the name of the Kyoto Protocol. And we know that there is no way to gather the political consensus needed to strengthen rights aspects once the provisions are adopted. So we ask: Is the Presidency – are Parties – ready to attach the name of Glasgow to a mechanism that could lead to forced eviction, intimidation and targeted assassination like as those reported under the Clean Development Mechanism? |