ECO loves multilateralism, but sometimes it feels a bit like Parties are spoiled children that never get told off. To review Parties’ cooperative approaches under article 6.2, Parties are currently proposing that the review process shall be “facilitative, [non-intrusive,] non-punitive, respectful of national sovereignty and avoid placing undue burden on participating Parties”.
With all those caveats, ECO wonders what the point is of even having a review. Especially since some Parties are also fighting to keep the right to designate any information as “confidential”, as ECO highlighted yesterday.
Do you know what *is* intrusive, punitive and places a major burden on Parties? Climate change. And it’s time that the UNFCCC process starts setting up rules that can bite and have real impact. We don’t need another facilitative and non-punitive exchange between experts and Parties. We need a stringent review that will verify whether Parties who trade mitigation outcomes are actually delivering real impact, or just trading hot air and patting themselves on the back for it.
Information under article 6 should be public, complete, and all cooperative approaches must deliver real climate action. A strict review process needs to be established to deliver this.
For all their faults, the CDM, the 6.4 mechanism, and even the voluntary carbon markets do require independent and binding checks of the mitigation activities that lead to the generation of tradable units. There is no reason for cooperative approaches under article 6.2 to be any different. Having a handful of experts making non-binding recommendations to improve the quality of these approaches doesn’t even come close to the level of assurance that carbon markets need in order to not undermine the Paris Agreement’s objectives.