From global rules to local realities: Why land governance matters for Article 6

Article 6 of the Paris Agreement provides two key frameworks for international cooperation on climate mitigation. First, Article 6.2 allows countries to cooperate in achieving their climate targets through the transfer of internationally transferred mitigation outcomes (ITMOs) under bilateral or multilateral cooperative approaches. These approaches can encompass a range of mitigation activities, including land-based projects linked to carbon markets. Second, Article 6.4 establishes the Paris Agreement Crediting Mechanism (PACM), a centralised UN-supervised carbon market mechanism that enables the generation and transfer of emission reduction credits from approved mitigation activities. As the implementation of Articles 6.2 and 6.4 continues to evolve, important questions are being raised around transparency, safeguards, reporting systems, participation, and how social and land governance realities are reflected in the design and operation of carbon market mechanisms.

For many rural communities and small-scale farmers, these questions are not just technical matters: they can shape how land is used, governed, and negotiated in the context of climate action. The 64th Session of the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice and the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SB64) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which took place in Bonn, Germany, from 8-18 June 2026, provided an opportunity to discuss how climate mitigation efforts like Article 6.2 and 6.4 can strengthen, rather than undermine, the rights, tenure security, and agency of smallholders, pastoralists, Indigenous Peoples, and local communities. Our colleagues Christoph Kubitza from the German Institute for Global and Area Studies (GIGA) and Nikka Rivera and Esther Penunina from the Asian Farmers’ Association for Sustainable Rural Development (AFA) were there to represent the Land Matrix Initiative and take part in these crucial discussions.

Nikka also presented at the “Grassroots perspectives on carbon markets: Unpacking impact and engagement” side event, where she shared reflections from our recent report, produced in collaboration with Carbon Market Watch along with observations on the proposed Botolan wind farm project in the Philippines. Here, Christoph and Nikka share some key insights emerging from the event.

Why does evidence on land governance matter in climate policy discussions?

“Many climate mitigation projects are implemented in areas where land is already occupied, cultivated, or managed under customary land tenure. Yet these realities are not always fully reflected in project documentation, reporting systems, or national land classifications,” explains Christoph. The Land Matrix documents large-scale land acquisitions in different regions, helping make visible the broader governance dynamics surrounding large-scale projects, land control, and community impacts. Beyond data collection, the initiative also supports field-based and case documentation that helps contextualise how projects are negotiated and experienced on the ground. As the first Article 6.4 projects are starting to issue credits, this is particularly germane.

“The focus is now moving from what the rules say to how projects and mechanisms operate in practice,” continues Christoph. “In this context, the Article’s Sustainable Development Tool, which includes most social safeguards, will need to start proving itself.” Moreover, agreements under Article 6.2 for bilateral carbon trading are swiftly increasing in numbers as well, but without any social safeguards in the mechanism’s guidance, nor in the current bilateral agreements. Yet many conversations about the social and economic risks of these carbon market projects remain surprisingly vague. “One key reason for this is that there is often a disconnect between how projects are discussed globally and how they are experienced locally,” points out Nikka. “International climate discussions tend to focus on methodologies, safeguards, and technical requirements. Communities, however, are often asking more fundamental questions, such as who decides how land is used, how will our livelihoods be affected, what happens to our cultural heritage and customary rights, and what recourse exists when harms occur?”

At the same time, community-generated evidence remains underrepresented in many decision-making processes, despite often providing the most grounded understanding of territories, resource use, and potential impacts.

Grassroots perspectives on carbon markets

The discourse at the side event further highlighted that many of the challenges associated with Article 6 extend beyond the technical design of carbon market mechanisms. Discussions also examined how projects engage with existing systems of land governance, customary tenure, and community-decision making, with experiences shared during the event revealing a fundamental difference in how project proponents and communities understand the same landscape. Project planning often begins with technical assessments, administrative boundaries, and project coordinates, whereas communities understand and govern those same territories through customary institutions, livelihoods, cultural heritage, watersheds, and long-standing relationships with the land.

“Too often, projects enter communities with solutions already designed and decisions already framed,” emphasises Nikka. “But when project proponents enter these spaces, they are entering territories, landscapes, and governance systems that already exist. They are outsiders to communities that have long-standing relationships with their lands and resources.” In these processes, communities should not be treated merely as stakeholders to be consulted after plans have been developed. “They are rights holders whose knowledge, priorities, and decision-making processes must be respected from the outset, throughout the life of a project, and even beyond its implementation,” she adds.

In her presentation, Nikka also reinforced several other issues that continue to emerge in land-based projects: the quality and completeness of information provided to communities, the recognition of customary and informal tenure rights, and the need for effective remedy and accountability when harms occur. She also explained that consultation does not automatically equate to Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC), and that meaningful participation requires much more than simply conducting meetings. “Meaningful participation begins when we recognise that communities are not simply part of a project’s context but are the very foundation of it.”

“As carbon market implementation accelerates, bridging the gap between global frameworks and local realities will become increasingly important,” concludes Christoph. This will require sustained attention to what happens on the ground and robust evidence on the real-world impacts of these projects – something we at the Land Matrix will continue to prioritise and pursue to ensure local voices and land rights are central to carbon market implementation.