Martin Hession is Chair of the Article 6.4 Supervisory Body, which oversees the rules for the UN carbon market under the Paris Agreement, and Maria AlJishi is the body’s Vice Chair.

The recent adoption of new standards for the UN’s carbon market marks a key step for international climate cooperation, finally aligning offset crediting with the Paris Agreement and providing a benchmark for countries and investors in a world where all nations are expected to continuously raise their climate ambition.

As Chair and Vice-Chair of the Supervisory Body developing these rules, we are acutely aware that we serve a diverse set of actors. Our task is to steer a path that delivers climate ambition, supports country priorities, safeguards social and environmental integrity, and offers a reliable framework for investment.

At the core is a persistent question: are the rules effective in delivering real results and fair in balancing the interests of all those involved in the market?

Brazil seeks early deals on two stalled issues at Bonn climate talks

In the past two years, we’ve made important progress. We’ve adopted broad standards for how to calculate both emission reductions and emissions removals, established a system to manage the risk of emissions reversals, and introduced mandatory environmental and human rights safeguards and an independent grievance and appeals process. However, without a steady flow of investment, this progress will remain largely on paper.

Laying the foundation for greater ambition

With the adoption of the new baseline standard in May, we’ve entered a new phase, enabling more ambitious credits. We now have a clear and rigorous standard to guide the implementation of stronger crediting benchmarks. In today’s context, it offers a more realistic starting point for measuring credible emissions reductions and removals.

Under this benchmark, credits can only be claimed for reductions compared to conservative estimates of what would have occurred without the project. Projects can no longer earn credits for minor improvements over business-as-usual; they must use more conservative baselines that reflect growing climate ambition.

First carbon credit scheme for early coal plant closures unveiled

For example, a mechanism methodology may require crediting levels to be set at least 10% below historical emissions or benchmarked against best-in-class performance and then require a decline by at least 1% per year. This steady tightening ensures alignment with a net zero pathway, reduces the risk of over-crediting, and helps host countries retain more emission reductions, supporting future ambition.

The leakage standard is another important step, though more work remains to address emissions impacts at the national or sectoral level. Its goal is to make sure that projects reducing emissions in one place don’t cause emissions elsewhere. For example, if a reforestation project protects one area but displaces logging to a nearby region, the overall benefit could be lost. The standard requires projects to identify and track such indirect impacts and subtract them from the emissions cuts they claim.

Avoiding past mistakes

These technical standards are essential to ensuring environmental integrity. But their success also depends on trust and participation, particularly from countries hosting the carbon credit projects. As they weigh whether to approve credits and crediting programmes, they will understandably want to retain a share of the emissions reduction benefits from the investments. The new