Johnny Lye. iStock
The world needs every effective tool to cut pollution quickly and fairly – and Article 6 is one of them. It’s the Paris Agreement’s framework for countries to cooperate through carbon markets.
Over the past decade, carbon markets and carbon credit integrity have significantly increased, rules have aligned, and this UN carbon crediting system has officially come online. This year in Belém, COP30 isn’t about renegotiating those rules; it’s about making them work – and making sure nature is part of the picture so finance reaches the people and ecosystems that can deliver near-term climate wins.
A decade of progress
Over the past decade, Article 6 has moved from design to implementation. The Paris Agreement Crediting Mechanism (PACM) set the vision in 2015, and at Glasgow (COP26), Parties finalized the core Article 6 package that unlocked international cooperation. Glasgow also catalyzed momentum for forest finance through initiatives like the LEAF Coalition and high-level pledges to halt and reverse deforestation.
Fast forward to 2024: after four years of stalled negotiations, Parties officially adopted the set of rules underpinning Article 6.4 at COP29 and established the rules for trading under Article 6.2. The outcome put cooperation on firmer footing – from clarifying how countries account and report under 6.2, to setting a workplan for the Article 6.4 crediting mechanism.
While there are no formal Article 6 negotiations again until 2028, the focus now is getting the technical rules and integrity guardrails right as implementation accelerates toward Belém and beyond.
The ecosystem that makes Article 6 work
International carbon credits haven’t improved in a vacuum. Over the years, an intentional choreography between international decision makers, national policymakers, and independent standards bodies has begun to align, providing clarity to market actors on what counts as real, high-integrity mitigation.
- The Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market (ICVCM) – founded in 2021 – has established Core Carbon Principles and an integrity label, giving governments and buyers a shared benchmark for quality.
- The Voluntary Carbon Markets Integrity Initiative (VCMI) has outlined credible corporate claims, aligning demand with high-quality supply.
- Initiatives for social and environmental integrity – like the Carbon Credit Quality Initiative and the Tropical Forest Credit Integrity guide – have helped policymakers and buyers navigate credit quality landscapes.
- Carbon credit rating agencies, such as Calyx Global, Sylvera, BeZero and MSCI have been improving our understanding of the technical underpinning of many carbon credit methodologies.
- Increasingly sophisticated data providers bring new advances in monitoring and reporting of carbon emissions.
- Financial authorities such as IOSCO are also leaning in, providing guidance in relation to contractual, legal, and accounting matters.
Domestic markets have also leaned into quality and transparency within national rules:
- Kenya has legally mandated community benefit-sharing for carbon projects via Community Development Agreements.
- Singapore has established an International Carbon Credit framework that allows limited use of eligible credits with corresponding-adjustment requirements and clear buyer guidance.
- The United Kingdom has put forward government principles to align its voluntary market with high-integrity standards, explicitly anchoring to ICVCM and VCMI.
Together, these pieces reinforce one another: clearer standards raise supply quality, and clearer claims increase confident demand. The result is a more legitimate, more interoperable international market that coalesces around what ‘good’ looks like – especially for nature and forests.
As quality markers converge, the next step is alignment on the UN side: bringing Article 6.4 online in a way that includes nature and drives finance toward the communities stewarding it.
UN crediting is switching on – and nature must plug in
The UN’s carbon-crediting system is beginning to run: its first methodology (landfill gas) was approved earlier this week. The next test is simple: will nature be part of it?
Recent draft rules to manage ‘non-permanence’ (i.e., the risk of future losses) aim to protect integrity, but if set too rigidly, they could push forests and other land-based activities out of scope. There is no credible path to a stable climate without conserving and restoring nature. Shutting the door would slow near-term gains and restrict Indigenous Peoples and local communities from accessing sorely needed finance. A better approach is to manage risk without closing the door by using strong buffers and long-term stewardship, setting realistic and ambitious baselines, and continuously improving as data gets better.
This is where COP30 matters. Countries are not renegotiating the rulebook this year, but they can steer implementation so Article 6.4 includes nature under workable, science-based standards – turning clearer rules into tangible results for people, forests, and the climate.
Meanwhile, the wider market is taking the lead: the ICVCM has already approved jurisdictional REDD+ and Improved Forest Management methodologies under its CCP label, with similar decisions on nature credits like high forest, low deforestation expected soon.
Beyond Belém
One decade since Paris, the trajectory of carbon credits is unmistakable: rules have tightened, safeguards have strengthened, and credible finance is beginning to reach impactful initiatives. Integrity is higher, and alignment is growing across countries, companies, and standards. As a result, we are starting to unlock funding that can protect forests and support communities in ways that can be measured and trusted.
The direction of travel is already set across the broader market. Now it’s time to match it on the UN side by keeping nature in scope so Article 6 can function as intended: a credible way to scale real climate impact effectively.