Negotiators here in Glasgow, and in Madrid, and in Katowice, and in Bonn, and in Marrakech have become obsessed with carbon markets. We get it. We know how attractive it is to pay others to do the work while someone else covers the costs. But in these dire circumstances, we need to sit down and talk about other ways to enhance ambition, and fast. Like, right here in Glasgow!
When it comes to talking about Article 6 and international cooperation, it’s always mitigation, mitigation, mitigation, and, markets, markets, markets. But what about those non-market approaches that are also included in Article 6? Yes, the stuff at the end of Article 6 that no one seems to see or want to talk about, but which could raise hundreds of billions of dollars – including for ecosystem conservation – through innovative approaches to finance including financial transaction taxes, taxes on the super rich, and levies on fossil fuel production and aviation.
Let’s take a step back and take a quick gander at the Paris Agreement. Article 6 is about voluntary cooperation in the implementation of NDCs, to allow for higher ambition in mitigation and adaptation actions, and to promote sustainable development and environmental integrity. So basically, it’s about international cooperation that supports mitigation, adaptation, finance, technology transfer, knowledge sharing and capacity building.
Unfortunately, though, non-market approaches have been left behind in the negotiations, given less time and less emphasis. All this time we could’ve been unleashing a powerful system to raise ambition and finance through a range of measures for enhanced international cooperation on climate change. Instead, negotiators have tied themselves up in knots, year-after-year around all the complexities related to carbon markets.
This whole time we could’ve been telling the kids about how countries are enhancing cooperation and entering bilateral, regional, or international climate agreements to raise hundreds of billions of dollars per year to enhance mitigation and adaptation ambition, doing things like protecting natural ecosystems and supporting adaptation and a just transition. Imagine that! The thousands of students that have taken to the streets for more action and all the activists at ECO would surely approve. Non-market approaches have huge potential. Allow us to quickly tell you why before you jump into the next round of negotiations.
Non-market approaches can be implemented quickly, and being fast is a good thing in a crisis. Negotiations concerning markets have taken what feels like forever. We have watched our negotiator friends working tirelessly on Article 6 for almost 7 years with no outcome. We feel for you and would love to help you find a way out. Even assuming there is a market outcome in Glasgow, there’s still a lot of work to be done over the coming years. We could be launching non-market approaches and opening the way for all sorts of international cooperation under Article 6 right now and see activities and results within 1 or 2 years, or even months. Just look how quickly the Green Climate Fund set up its non-market results-based payments system for REDD+.
Non-market approaches have the potential to be more equitable and beneficial to more countries, especially LDCs and SIDS. Many countries won’t be able to participate in markets due to capacity constraints and not being able to create carbon credits. Non-market-based approaches to international cooperation can support adaptation and NDC implementation for all countries and even support the implementation of conditional NDCs. LDCs and SIDS are calling for a share of proceeds from transactions to go towards adaptation that will diminish over time as emissions are reduced. Non-market approaches can ensure ongoing support for adaptation and even for loss and damage going well into the future.
Non-market approaches can also support resilience and recovery. How badly is this needed? More than ever after that pandemic, right? The pandemic has increased the vulnerability of those already most vulnerable to climate change. Enhanced international cooperation through an equitable non-market-based approach opens the door to support for more countries and can support projects that will help boost the much-needed resilience and recovery.
And last but not least, non-market approaches have huge untapped potential to support significant real and permanent emissions reductions, and we all know how much we need that if we’re going to keep 1.5 alive. Non-market approaches include North-South and South-South transfer of technologies, policies and regulations, and knowledge to mitigate climate change, as well as international cooperation to raise finance through innovative financial mechanisms to support mitigation activities. Offsetting doesn’t reduce emissions, it merely shifts emissions obligations around, but through non-market approaches, mitigation activities across all sectors can be supported to deliver real and permanent emissions reductions in multiple countries, as well as boost adaptation co-benefits.
Thanks for raising this and for your support for non-market mechanisms. Our society in the UK supports a reforestation project in Bolivia, which started life as a CDM project until Bolivia withdrew its support for CDM at COP15 in 2009. We have since managed to certify our emissions reductions for the voluntary market and have avoided the wrath of the authorities by ensuring that our farmers get paid when they complete scheduled planting and maintenance work, not only at the point that carbon credits are sold. Since we are also a “not for profit” any surplus revenue (Ha ha!) would be reinvested in our target communities. This would be fine a) if it were widely accepted and b) if the price paid for “units of carbon: actually remotely covered the cost of maintaining tree lots and providing ongoing professional forest and land management training and support over the 18 or so years it takes until the “average additional carbon stock” of each newly planted tree lot has been reached.
Life would be SO much easier, if we and our farmers could just be paid like everyone else – ie. for turning up day in and day out and getting on with our job!