Industry and NGOs lobby against UN carbon

Carbon credit developers, corporate buyers, and leading conservation NGOs are challenging new UN rules aimed at preventing credits from being invalidated by fires, drought, or logging. Critics label this a coordinated lobbying campaign to weaken integrity measures for the nascent carbon market, according to documents reviewed by Climate Home News.

Companies, NGOs, and the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) have contested the scientific basis for the proposed changes. They argue that stronger protections against carbon loss could increase project costs and restrict the supply of credits to the market.

The Proposed Rule Change

A UN technical panel proposed a new system in July for the Article 6.4 mechanism, which governs credits used by countries and companies to meet climate goals. The system would require project developers to size insurance pools, known as buffer pools, based on local risk values from new independent research. This marks a shift from current voluntary market practices, which often rely on expert estimations and developer-provided data.

Federica Dossi, an expert at Carbon Market Watch, stated the decision on the reversal risk assessment tool would be key. "It would bring a new paradigm for calculating the number of units forwarded to the buffer pool based on empirical data," she said. The technical panel is discussing the tool this week in Bonn, with recommendations expected for a supervisory body decision in early October.

The rules would first apply to clean cookstove projects, a popular but heavily criticized credit type. They could later extend to other activities, including forest protection programmes.

Evidence of Coordinated Lobbying

A review of over 30 public submissions to the UN found significant overlap in messages and, in several cases, copied text. This points to a coordinated effort to flag concerns about the new rules. Tech giant Apple, a major buyer of nature-based credits, warned against relying on a single scientific model. Its submission was a lightly-edited version of one presented by the Beyond Alliance, a coalition of corporate buyers and NGOs. In one paragraph, the Alliance's name mistakenly appears in Apple's document.

The Beyond Alliance told Climate Home News it shared its final submission with members, leaving them to decide on its use. The coalition rejected claims that its submission advocates for a weaker tool or only reflects business concerns. The Alliance added that its members received briefings from UNEP, which is understood to have played an important role in efforts to influence the UN carbon market rules.

Three experts and a European Union diplomat said UNEP's interventions overwhelmingly supported the views of those with a financial interest in carbon markets. UNEP's head of mitigation, Gabriel Labbate, rejected this. He said the agency contributes technical inputs from a politically-neutral, science-based perspective focused on environmental integrity.

Criticisms from UNEP and NGOs

In mid-July, representatives from UNEP, Conservation International, and The Nature Conservancy briefed government officials from Canada, the UK, Germany, and several other nations. The online event was organized by the Forest & Climate Leaders' Partnership. Speakers strongly criticized the proposed rules.

A technical advisor to Conservation International told participants the panel's approach was "based on bad science" because it relies on a single model he claimed is inappropriate for determining buffer pool contributions. During a discussion led by UNEP's Labbate, speakers said applying reversal risk measures to cookstove projects could impose disproportionate costs and undermine their financial viability.

Cookstove programmes issue credits by calculating emissions prevented through more efficient stoves. The new tool would require these activities to guard against future carbon losses for the first time under the UN system. UNEP, NGOs, and carbon firms argue this credit type represents a flow of avoided emissions, not a stock of stored carbon that can be released. Scientists reject that distinction, noting the unburned wood remains in forests exposed to the same risks.

Speakers at the briefing also worried the tighter approach would set a bad precedent for nature-based projects, impacting large-scale forest conservation credits. Both Conservation International and TNC run programmes to protect trees from being cut down. Labbate leads the UN-REDD programme supporting forest protection initiatives and co-chairs an expert panel for the Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market. After the webinar, organizers shared key messages and draft submissions from the three organizations with participants.