Carbon credit groups lobby UN to weaken new

Carbon credit developers, corporate buyers, and some leading conservation NGOs are pushing to weaken new United Nations rules aimed at preventing carbon credits from being wiped out by natural disasters. According to documents seen by Climate Home News, these groups argue the proposed stricter protections lack scientific basis and could raise costs and limit credit supply.

The rules concern "reversal risk"-the danger that carbon stored through a project, like a protected forest, is released back into the atmosphere by fire, drought, or logging. To insure against this, projects must set aside unsold credits in a "buffer pool." How these pools are sized has long been contentious, with many experts saying forest projects historically underestimate carbon loss risks.

New Rules Based on Empirical Data

In July, the UN technical panel for the Article 6.4 carbon market mechanism proposed a new system. It would require buffer pools to be calculated using local risk values from new independent scientific research. Supporters call this a more rigorous shift from the current voluntary market's reliance on expert guesswork and developer-provided data.

Federica Dossi, an expert at Carbon Market Watch, said the decision on this reversal risk tool "will be important." She stated it "would bring a new paradigm for calculating the number of units forwarded to the buffer pool based on empirical data." The panel is discussing the tool this week in Bonn, with recommendations going to the market's Supervisory Body for a potential decision in early October.

Initially, the rules would apply only to clean cookstove projects, a popular but heavily criticised 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, with sections of text copied and pasted by different organisations. Climate Home News reports this points to a coordinated lobbying campaign.

Tech giant Apple, a major buyer of nature-based credits, submitted a warning against relying on a single scientific model. Apple's submission was a lightly-edited version of one from 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 reporters it shared its final submission with members for their use. It rejected claims its submission advocates for a weaker tool or only reflects business concerns. The coalition said its members were briefed by the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), which sources say has 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 those with a financial interest in the markets. UNEP's head of mitigation, Gabriel Labbate, rejected this. He said the agency contributes from a "politically-neutral, science-based perspective" and its positions are grounded in environmental integrity, not financial interests.

NGOs and UNEP Criticise the Science

In mid-July, representatives from UNEP, Conservation International, and The Nature Conservancy (TNC) briefed government officials from several nations via an online event. According to a readout, they voiced strong criticism of the new rules.

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

Cookstove credits are generated by calculating emissions prevented through more efficient stoves. The new tool would require them to guard against future carbon losses for the first time under the UN system. UNEP, NGOs, and credit firms argue these credits represent a "flow" of avoided emissions, not a "stock"of stored carbon that can be released. Scientists reject this distinction, noting the unburned wood remains in forests exposed to the same risks."bad precedent"for nature-based projects, impacting large-scale forest conservation credits. Both Conservation International and TNC run programmes that protect trees from being cut down."key messages" and draft submissions from the three organisations.