By Abbas Nazil
Efforts by some countries and industry interests to dilute global carbon market rules under Article 6 were blocked at summit, preventing what observers warned could have been a major setback for climate accountability.
Negotiators in Belém faced intense pressure as several delegations pushed to weaken transparency, scientific rigor and permanence rules within Article 6.4, mirroring the demands of powerful carbon market actors who sought greater flexibility and fewer safeguards for crediting projects.
Civil society groups, progressive negotiators and scientists strongly resisted these attempts, ultimately ensuring that the final decision preserved core safeguards and avoided concessions that would have benefited corporate interests at the expense of environmental integrity.
Experts from Carbon Market Watch (CMW) described the situation as narrowly averting disaster, noting that the negotiations revealed how vulnerable Article 6 remains to lobbying from financial groups heavily invested in carbon credits.
However, negotiators failed to show similar resolve regarding the transition of projects from the Clean Development Mechanism into the Paris Agreement Crediting Mechanism.
Countries agreed to extend the deadline for CDM projects to move into Article 6.4 by six more months, raising the risk that nearly a billion low-quality credits could enter the new market and undermine its credibility.
Although the CDM framework will finally be shut down, old credits will continue to influence the system, a move critics say sends the contradictory message that the mechanism is ending while still being allowed to shape the new market.
The adopted decision did, however, instruct the Article 6.4 Supervisory Body to broaden participation in consultations by engaging Indigenous peoples and local communities, groups historically sidelined despite being most affected by carbon market activities.
Article 6.2 negotiations delivered little progress, with no substantial improvements on transparency or accountability.
Proposals that would have required countries to avoid trading mitigation outcomes that fail to meet transparency requirements were removed, leaving what analysts described as a neutral and insufficient decision.
Observers also noted a record presence of fossil-fuel lobbyists at COP30 and warned that carbon markets are increasingly being used as substitutes for genuine emissions reductions.
Experts cautioned that unless governments resist vested interests and strengthen Article 6 rules, carbon markets risk becoming a dumping ground for low-quality credits that obscure climate inaction rather than support real global emission cuts.
