People working in forest carbon projects are hearing more about Article 6. It can sound distant and technical, like something only climate negotiators need to understand.
But Article 6 can matter for communities, landowners, local organisations and governments because it affects how some carbon credits are approved, transferred, counted and reported.
For community-owned projects, the most important question is not only 'can Article 6 bring more finance?' It is also 'can Article 6 support projects that protect forests, respect customary rights, follow free, prior and informed consent, and share benefits fairly?'
What is Article 6?
Article 6 is part of the Paris Agreement. It sits apart from the Voluntary Carbon Market (VCM) and sets out ways for countries to cooperate on climate action. Some of this can involve carbon markets. Some can involve non-market cooperation, such as technical support, policy or climate finance that does not involve buying and selling carbon credits.
There are three key parts to Article 6:
Article 6.2 allows countries to work together and transfer emissions reductions between them. These transferred outcomes are often called ITMOs, which stands for Internationally Transferred Mitigation Outcomes.
Article 6.4 creates a new crediting mechanism under the Paris Agreement to be supervised by the United Nations.
Article 6.8 recognises non-market cooperation, where countries work together on climate action without buying, selling or trading carbon credits.
For most community forest carbon projects, Article 6.2 and Article 6.4 are more important because these are most closely connected to selling carbon credits and international carbon accounting.
ITMO: an emissions reduction transferred from one country to another.
Why does Article 6 matter for community carbon projects?
A carbon credit represents a measured climate benefit. In our work, this benefit is protecting and restoring forests so carbon dioxide can be stored in those trees.
One tonne of carbon dioxide reduced or removed from the atmosphere = one carbon credit.
In the voluntary carbon market, a company or organisation from anywhere in the world may buy a credit and make a claim that they have ‘offset’ some of their emissions produced by their business or organisation. Under Article 6, a credit may also be connected to a country’s national climate target, known as its NDC.
NDC: a country's national climate target.
This creates an important accounting question: who is allowed to count the same climate benefit?
If a credit from a project in one country is authorised for use by another country under an NDC agreement, the host country may need to make a corresponding adjustment. This is an accounting step to avoid two countries counting the same emissions reduction towards their national targets.
A simple way to think about it is like a travel ticket that can only be used once. Once one country has claimed a tonne of emission reduction toward its national climate target, another country cannot claim that same tonne as well.
This does not mean every community carbon project must become an Article 6 project. Voluntary carbon market projects can still exist outside of Article 6. But it is important to be clear about who gets to count or ‘own’ the emission reductions.
If a credit is ‘adjusted’, the government that hosts the project has agreed that the reduction can be counted somewhere else and will not claim it towards its own climate target. If it is not ‘adjusted’, the host country may still count the reduction toward its own target. More buyers, governments and carbon standards are now asking projects to explain this clearly.
Authorisation: government approval for how a credit can be used.
Corresponding adjustment: a change to a country’s carbon accounts so that an emissions reduction transferred to another country is not counted twice.
Where does this intersect with Nakau’s work?
Nakau supports community-owned forest carbon projects. For us, communities and customary landowners are the most important voice in a project. They are the rights-holders and project owners. Article 6 intersects with this approach in several important ways.
1. Carbon rights and land rights
Article 6 can add government approval and international reporting requirements to community-owned projects, but it should not weaken the need for clear land and carbon rights. Communities need to know who owns the carbon rights, who can authorise the use of credits, and how national rules recognise customary landowners.
2. FPIC
Free, prior and informed consent is especially important when carbon credits may be used internationally. Communities need information in local language and formats everyone can understand. They should know what kind of credit is being created, who may buy it, who may count it, what approvals are needed, what risks exist, and what choices remain open in the future.
3. MRV and transparency
Article 6 places more attention on measurement, reporting and verification. Good MRV helps show that emissions reductions are real, additional and lasting. It also helps governments, buyers and communities understand what has been achieved and what has been promised.
4. Benefit-sharing
If Article 6 creates new opportunities, it may also create new costs, such as approvals, reporting, registry fees, audits or advisory support. Communities and local organisations should understand the full picture: gross income, project costs, government charges, partner fees and the net benefits that flow back to landowners.
FPIC and MRV remain central to project integrity
What Article 6 does not mean
It does not mean all carbon projects automatically become government projects.
It does not mean communities should lose control over land, forests or carbon rights.
It does not mean Article 6 credits are automatically high integrity. Integrity still depends on additionality, permanence, MRV, FPIC, transparent governance and fair benefit-sharing.
It does not mean every buyer will want the same type of credit or the same type of claim.
Questions communities and local organisations can ask
Before agreeing to any Article 6-related arrangement, communities and local organisations can ask:
Who owns the land and carbon rights?
Has FPIC been followed properly, with enough time and information for community decision-making?
Is the project voluntary market, Article 6 or still undecided?
Will the government authorise the credits, and for what purpose?
Who will be allowed to count the emissions reduction?
What costs, fees or reporting obligations will apply?
How will income be shared, and what will communities receive after costs?
What happens if national rules change?
A simple way to think about Article 6
Article 6 is not just a carbon market rule. It is a set of rules about cooperation, permission and accounting. For Pacific communities, the practical issue is whether those rules help protect forests, support national climate action and respect the rights of the people who own and care for the land.
For Nakau, the starting point remains the same: carbon finance should support community ownership, FPIC, strong governance, transparent benefit-sharing and long-term forest protection. Article 6 may create new pathways for climate finance, but only if these foundations are protected.