Key outcomes of the 23rd meeting of the Article 6.4 Supervisory Body (SBM 023)

From October 5-9, 2026, the Article 6.4 Supervisory Body (SBM) convened for its 23rd meeting (SBM 023) in Bonn. Our experts followed the discussions and produced a summary.

This summary covers:

• Main outcomes
• New clean cooking methodologies
• New reversal risk assessment tool
• New sampling and surveys tool
• Accounting of reversal risk buffer pool contributions
• Revision of methodological standards and tools for application to programmes of activities
• Activity cycle updates for transition CDM activities
• What’s next?

This summary was prepared by Climate Focus and Perspectives Climate Group as part of the “Mobilizing the Article 6.4 Project Pipeline” project, supported by the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Climate Action, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety of Germany (BMUKN). The analysis, results, and recommendations in this summary represent the understanding of the authors and are not representative of BMUKN’s position.

Main outcomes

Methodology updates

• Adopted: Mechanism methodology: Cooking energy transitions (A6.4-AMM-004)
• Adopted: Mechanism methodology: Energy efficiency measures in household cooking (A6.4-AMM-005)
• Adopted: Methodological tool: Sampling and surveys (A6.4-AMT-010)
• Adopted: Methodological tool: Reversal risk assessment (A6.4-AMT-011)
• Adopted: Revisions to 5 standards and 4 tools so they apply to PoAs: Standards A6.4-STAN-METH-003 (additionality), -004 (baseline), -005 (leakage), -006 (suppressed demand), and -007 (non-permanence and reversals); Tools A6.4-AMT-001 (common practice), -002 (investment analysis), -007 (electricity emissions), and -008 (lock-in risk)

Activity cycle updates

• Adopted: Revised Transition procedure. Extends the A/R documentation deadline to one year after extension of Reversal Risk Assessment tool to transitioning A/R activities and revision of SD tool to include removal activities.
• Adopted: Revised Transition procedure. Aligns environmental and social requirements with those in the SD tool.
• Adopted: Activity cycle procedure, activity standard, and Validation and Verification standard for projects. Incorporates non-permanence and reversal elements and a two-year issuance window for transitioned CDM projects.
• Extended: Deadline exemption to submit issuance requests within two years of renewing the crediting period. Includes transitioned CDM PoAs, effective immediately.
• Deferred: Time limits on post-issuance authorization of A6.4ERs.
• Deferred: Summary of stakeholder inputs on SD tool v02.0.

At a glance: new clean cooking methodologies

The SBM discussed and adopted two methodologies for clean cooking projects. The table shows the most important differences and similarities.

Methodology: Cooking energy transitions (A6.4-AMM-004)

• Scope and purpose: The methodology applies to cooking energy transitions that support the distribution and operation of lower-emission cooking technologies, including improved biomass cookstoves and alternative cooking technologies.
• Key discussions: Some SBM members questioned that eligible technologies applying the methodology are not being exempted from baseline downward adjustment although the Baseline Standard would allow it where the adjustment could impact project viability. Some SBM members also flagged the fixed values with non-adjustable uncertainty discounts as potentially prohibitive for project developers. The requirement to make permanence deductions was extensively debated, including whether to implement this via a phased approach or to make exemptions depending on project scale. Finally, some questioned applying the methodology to LPG on the grounds that Article 6.4 should not be used to support fossil fuel use.
• Decision: The SBM adopted the methodology and requested to expand it to institutional stoves (e.g., schools and hospitals). The Common Practice analysis now clarifies that it should only be carried out in the project-relevant context (i.e., consider only common practices in urban settings if implementing a project there).
• Consequences: The planned expansion is relevant for institutional cookstoves, which have been attracting significant political attention over the past year. The adopted methodology requires projects to make deductions to account for non-permanence and safeguard against potential reversals. For projects reducing biomass consumption, this will result in a lower volume of issued credits, requiring higher carbon prices.

Methodology: Energy efficiency measures in household cooking (A6.4-AMM-005)

• Scope and purpose: The methodology replaces the CDM’s AMS-II.G methodology and is applicable to improved-efficiency domestic stoves burning biomass.
• Key discussions: SBM members extensively debated permanence requirements. Supporters of buffer pool contributions cited the need to safeguard credit integrity, noting that fNRB values do not account for potential reversals. Opponents argued that deductions could make projects economically unviable, are not needed for flux accounting, run counter to carbon market precedent, and are unnecessary where fNRB is updated annually since reversals would then be reflected in a lower fNRB value. Several members criticized the 4.5% performance-based additionality threshold as being too prohibitive. Stakeholders also argued that projects receiving government or philanthropic financial support should be exempt from the performance-based common practice analysis.
• Decision: The SBM adopted the methodology and exempted it from the mandatory baseline downward adjustment. The exemption was granted given that these cooking devices have significant social co-benefits. The SBM also clarified that stove monitors will be required for claiming any emission reductions after January 2028.[2]
• Consequences: The requirement that all project devices are equipped with stove use monitors (SUMs) by January 2028 to qualify for credits may pose financial and operational challenges for project developers: installing and maintaining SUMs, as well as processing the resulting data, can be costly and require new technical expertise. Furthermore, projects will have to apply the reversal risk assessment tool (see next slide) which could reduce crediting volumes by 6-60%.[3] The MEP acknowledged that buffer pool deductions could make Article 6.4 financing for projects unattractive unless buyers are willing to offer high upfront carbon prices.

Tool: Reversal risk assessment (A6.4-AMT-011)

• Scope and purpose: Mandated by the Removals and Reversals Standard, the tool enables activity participants to determine the share of credits a project must contribute to the buffer pool to protect against potential reversals. This share is calculated by combining natural and human-induced risk factors (reduced for host-country measures). The tool provides activity-specific default values for these. Version 01.0 applies only to activities reducing non-renewable biomass consumption.
• Key discussions: The SBM discussed the MEP’s proposed default values for different parameters related to non-renewable biomass consumption. Some SBM members had strong concerns about the appropriateness of the data underlying the proposed default values for the natural reversal risk factor. Many SBM members were opposed to the proposed default values for the human-induced reversal risk factor and the suggested approach for selecting the default values for the human-induced risk factor and risk reduction factor.
• Decision: The SBM adopted the tool and agreed to set the default value for human-induced reversal risk at 20% and the maximum default reduction factor at 65% (20% for host country NDC and BTR addressing LULUCF, 5% for LT-LEDS that aims to halt and reverse deforestation, 40% for REDD+ measures aligned with Warsaw Framework). In exchange with the Secretariat and the MEP, the SBM agreed to allow activity participants to propose alternative natural reversal risk values that comply with the Removals Standard, the Reversals Standard, and paragraph 23 of decision 20/CMA.7.
• Consequences: Adoption of the tool along with the methodologies for clean cooking and energy-efficient cooking means that credits can be issued to cookstove and clean cooking activities that have applied to transition from the CDM. During the observer session, stakeholders flagged that buffer pool contributions calculated by the reversal risk assessment tool could materially reduce crediting volumes for clean cooking projects and are stacked on top of other deductions (e.g., share of proceeds; overall mitigation in global emissions).
• Next steps: The MEP will continue expanding the tool to other activity types including forestry, subsurface geological storage, and biochar; and update the provisions for activities reducing non-renewable biomass consumption within the next 2-3 years to reflect when credible new evidence becomes available.

Tool: Sampling and Surveys (A6.4-AMT-010)

• Scope and purpose: The tool consolidates sampling rules for Article 6.4 projects and PoAs, where referenced by methodologies, including 95% confidence and ±10% precision, permitted sampling methods, and sample-size calculation guidance.
• Key discussions: SBM members covered the feasibility of sampling in high-variance situations, the use of appropriate uncertainty adjustments, and how to prevent bias in DOE assessments.
• Decision: The SBM adopted the tool and requested that DOE requirements be incorporated into the project and PoA validation and verification standards. The SBM also agreed on an information note on how DOEs assess sampling plans and survey results during validation and verification, including controls for bias in component projects (CPs).

Accounting of reversal risk buffer pool contributions

Issue: PACM addresses reversal risks by requiring project participants to contribute a share of credits to a pooled credit reserve, i.e. the buffer pool. While implementation of the buffer pool operates within existing accounting rules, these were developed without consideration of the pool, leading to potential accounting inconsistencies. The secretariat flagged several interrelated issues at SBM 023: first transfer status on contribution and on cancellation; the final date for first transfer; post-issuance authorization; changes to authorization; and replenishment. (See concept note A6.4-SBM023-AA-A12 for more information including relevant CMA guidance.)

Possible solutions (all require CMA guidance):

• A. Keep the buffer pool and fix accounting by maintaining status quo or developing additional guidance. Additional guidance would either treat all pooled credits as MCUs (credits not authorized for use towards other countries’ targets) (2.1), or count contribution to the pool as the first transfer (2.2).
• B. Develop an alternative approach to remediating reversals that aligns with Article 6 accounting.

Next steps: The SBM requested a concept note from the secretariat with detailed solution options; these should include possible revisions to standards and procedures to improve alignment with accounting for NDCs and Article 6.2, and suitable alternatives to remediate reversals. Under its 2027 work program, the SBM will continue exploring options to improve buffer pool operation, as well as possible alternatives to the buffer pool that align with Article 6.2 accounting provisions. It will report on this work and flag any need for CMA guidance in its report to CMA 9.

Revision of methodological standards and tools for application to programmes of activities

Decision: The SBM adopted revisions to five methodological standards (additionality; baseline; leakage; suppressed demand; non-permanence and reversals) and four tools (common practice; investment analysis; electricity emissions; lock-in risk) to extend their application to PoAs.

Key design choices: The revisions distinguish between requirements for PoAs and individual component projects (CPs). The additionality and baseline standards allow methodology developers three approaches:

• A. Each CP demonstrates additionality and determines its baseline under project-level rules.
• B. The methodology sets the process for defining criteria for including CPs in a PoA.
• C. The methodology specifies CP eligibility criteria directly.

REDD+ leakage requirements will be checked at the project or CP level. In consequence, a CP can therefore proceed in a host country with completed REDD+ elements even if these are missing in another country in the same PoA. The Glossary will be updated to refer to “project or CP” in the affected definitions.

Next steps: The secretariat will revise the PoA activity standard, activity cycle procedure, and validation and verification standard, including provisions on non-permanence and reversals. The MEP will make existing mechanism methodologies and related tools applicable to PoAs.

Activity cycle updates for transition CDM activities

• Extension for Afforestation and Reforestation (A/R) activities: A new revision to the “Procedure: Transition of CDM Activities to the Article 6.4 Mechanism” extends the deadline to submit additional documentation related to removals and permanence for transitioning CDM A/R activities. Documentation is now due one year after the reversal risk assessment tool becomes applicable to transitioning A/R activities, and the sustainable development (SD) tool is revised to include removals.
• Environmental and social alignment with SD tool: The transition standard was revised to align its environmental and social requirements with those in the SD tool. The secretariat will continue revising the SD tool to include removal activities. The revision itself was deferred to the next SBM together with the summary of stakeholder inputs on the SD tool.
• Issuance deadline exemption for transitioned CDM projects and PoAs: The revised activity cycle documents allow transitioned CDM projects to submit issuance requests within two years of renewing the crediting period rather than within two years after the crediting period as usually required. The SBM extended the exemption to transitioned CDM PoAs with immediate effect. The secretariat will reflect this in the PoA activity cycle documents.
• Alternative evidence to prevent double issuance: The SBM agreed on DOE-verified self-declarations as alternative evidence against double issuance where CDM activities face difficulties obtaining confirmation from another crediting scheme. For provisional issuance requests, a declaration must be filed with the secretariat. The other scheme must be notified and has 30 days to object.

What’s next?

• The SBM’s annual report to the CMA will outline the outcomes of SBM 023, the work undertaken from November 1, 2025, to October 9, 2026, the SBM’s governance, management and financial status (including resource constraints), and recommendations for the CMA. The report will be available at least 14 days before CMA 8 at COP31.
• SBM 022 postponed consideration of a concept note on evaluating the implementation of the share of proceeds (SOP) due to limited practical implementation experience. The SBM subsequently discussed the SOP for adaptation with the Adaptation Fund Board, which will consider the complexities and possible solutions at its 47th meeting and provide feedback to the SBM. If received in time, the feedback will be included in the SBM’s annual report; otherwise, the Chair or the secretariat will present it at the CMA.
• The SBM acknowledged that the reversal risk buffer pool approach may result in inconsistent accounting. It requested a concept note with options to align approaches with NDC accounting, alternative ways to remediate reversals, potential recommendations to the CMA, and options for A6.4ERs left in the pool after the post-crediting monitoring period.
• The SBM agreed on a preliminary workplan for 2027, covering SBM 024 to 027. The plan is informed by the 2026-2027 business and resource allocation plan, the priority areas agreed in 2026, and austerity measures to contain expenditures. The SBM has reported resource constraints throughout the year (more details in forthcoming annual report). The next SBM is tentatively scheduled for February 22-26, 2027. The next MEP meeting is scheduled for November 30 – December 4, 2026.

[1] Note that version 1.0 of the methodology lists two inconsistent dates from which SUMs will be mandatory: 1 January 2028 and 1 January 2029. The table above assumes the earlier date applies.

[2] Note that version 1.0 of the methodology lists two inconsistent dates from which SUMs will be mandatory: 1 January 2028 and 1 January 2029.

[3] A6.4-MEP016-A04 Information note: Analysis of matters raised by the Supervisory Body at its 22nd meeting on the “Draft mechanism methodology: Energy efficiency measures in household cooking” (version 01.0), paragraph 63.

Image: Dietmar Rabich, Bonn, Langer Eugen — 2017 — 2115, CC BY-SA 4.0