Our myclimate delegation at COP30.
Our clear assessment of the development of market-based mechanisms is that The foundations for a functioning carbon market have been laid, and now it’s about quality, implementation and partnerships. Our impressions of the first week were “multi-faceted”, as one member of the myclimate delegation put it. Due to the in-depth technical discussions surrounding Article 6, we were mainly able to bring our perspective to the meetings dealing with the verification of high-quality climate protection projects. Because robust MRV systems (monitoring, reporting, verification) are crucial for the credibility of carbon credits.
But myclimate was also active in workshops on the role of carbon markets in supporting marginalised groups. The gist of it all was that projects that generate certificates that can be traded on markets must not only reduce emissions, but also have a social impact. Particularly in the field of nature-based solutions, the involvement of the local population or indigenous groups from the outset is crucial for the effectiveness and acceptance of these solutions. This is all the more the case in light of the fact that global interest in nature-based solutions (NBS) is growing. At myclimate, as an experienced project partner, we see an important role for ourselves here, and are happy to take on responsibility.
COP30 confirmed the framework conditions, and now it is time to put them into practice. For companies, this means that those who opt for high-quality, Paris-compatible projects today can effectively achieve their climate targets and at the same time contribute to the credibility of the market.
The bilateral mechanism under Article 6.2 is gaining in importance – many countries use it to implement their own policies. But with more leeway, the risk also increases of trust being undermined by inconsistent standards and a lack of transparency. myclimate is therefore committed to transparent processes and quality assurance (including, crucially, the avoidance of double counting). We also support states and other stakeholders in implementing credible climate protection measures under 6.2.
With the official (albeit slightly delayed) end of the clean development mechanism (CDM), Article 6.4 comes to the fore. The rules are in place, and now the task is to make the mechanisms usable in practice. In particular, the CORSIA programme in international aviation is increasing demand for formally recognised carbon credits. Many countries want to join this mechanism, but technical capacity is often lacking. In many discussions, our team of representatives, led by Franziska Heidenreich and Nsikan-George Emana, had the opportunity to express our willingness to support both implementation countries and interested parties as project developers and knowledge partners: with local roots, a global network and a clear commitment to transparency.
Another defining theme was multilateralism: almost 200 countries – with the exception of the US – were represented in Belém to find common solutions. The Brazilian concept of “mutirão” was omnipresent: a collective attitude of support, openness and collaboration.
But above all it was the COP of the indigenous peoples. Their presence in the panels and at the events as well as in the cityscape was impressive, even if they were not heard enough in the actual negotiations. But their role as guardians of nature is increasingly recognised. At the same time, criticism has been voiced of how they have been dealt with to date, for example in poorly designed REDD projects, or in the context of carbon markets without genuine participation. Our assessment is that, if climate finance is to strengthen indigenous communities, they must play an active role in shaping it. One example of this is our Plan Vivo project Babatana project in the Solomon Islands.
After all, one thing is clear: if the quality is right, then carbon market mechanisms can become a decisive lever for real climate protection and global justice.
