A new article by Dr Tomilola Akanle Eni-ibukun, published in Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law (RECIEL), evaluates whether the Article 6.4 mechanism under the Paris Agreement, also known as the Paris Agreement Crediting Mechanism (PACM), is capable of avoiding “problem shifting” in climate policy.
Market mechanisms are frequently presented as a key tool in tackling climate change. However, concerns arise when climate projects risk harming biodiversity, worsening ozone depletion, or undermining other environmental objectives. This form of problem shifting was a recognised weakness of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), largely because the potential negative environmental impacts of projects were not systematically considered.
The article examines whether the PACM is better designed to prevent trade-offs between climate action and other environmental goals. Drawing on policy coherence frameworks, the analysis evaluates the PACM’s Sustainable Development Tool, Activity Standard, Validation and Verification Standard, and Appeal and Grievance Processes.
The research concludes that, on paper, the PACM is significantly stronger than the CDM. It introduces mandatory ex ante risk screening, requires mitigation plans, mandates third-party verification of both climate and non-climate impacts, and establishes a formal redress mechanism for affected communities—none of which were required under the CDM. However, the article emphasises that the real test will be how the mechanism is implemented in practice.
