Why Article 6 should increase climate action – not delay it

Article 6 of the Paris Agreement was designed as a tool to enhance climate action, enabling countries to cooperate in achieving their climate targets. This cooperation must lead to real, additional, permanent and not double counted emissions reductions that support sustainable development—not simply shift responsibility from one country to another. For Article 6 to deliver on its promise, countries must first maximize their domestic efforts, ensuring any use of international carbon credits (ITMOs) come as a complement not a replacement. However, the rules developed under Article 6 do not introduce robust safeguards to ensure it drives actual mitigation.

Wealthier countries may purchase “low-hanging fruit” credits from poorer nations, improving their own CAT ratings while leaving sellers with tougher, costlier targets. This raises equity issues from the transfer of responsibility and 1.5°C alignment from the North to the South.

Importantly, finance generated through the purchase of ITMOs under Article 6 should not be counted as climate finance as these transactions are designed to help the buying country achieve its targets, while the selling country must make a corresponding adjustment that effectively makes the achievement of its target more difficult and costly.

Financial flows from developed to developing countries should first support increased climate action in the Global South, rather than prioritising transactions that benefit developed countries’ targets.

Our latest analysis shows that, even if all current climate pledges are met, the world is still on track for 2.6°C of warming by 2100—well above the Paris Agreement’s goal. This highlights the urgent need for stronger action and genuine emissions cuts, rather than reliance on international carbon markets.

Our country examples show the risks and opportunities:

• Switzerland’s 2035 target includes the use of international credits, potentially delaying necessary domestic action.
• The EU is debating whether to allow carbon credits for its 2040 target, while experts warn this will lower climate action. If the EU chooses to use Article 6, it should be to go beyond the 90–95% reduction, not to replace domestic action.
• Meanwhile, Brazil’s climate target considers the sale of emission reductions abroad, which could undermine its future ability to meet stronger climate targets.

Read the report