Emissions Avoidance is one of the most misused and misunderstood concepts in climate.
Some consider avoidance to be preventing emissions before they occur (e.g., not building a coal plant). Others associate it with carbon projects like avoiding deforestation or not further exploiting fossil fuel reserves.
When the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA), a subsidiary body of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Conference of the Parties, decided at the June 2024 SB60 climate meeting that emission avoidance is not an eligible activity type under Article 6, it sparked confusion because the term has been used in varied contexts and lacks a clear, universally agreed-upon definition. This confusion led some stakeholders to wrongly believe that forestry or land-use projects (like REDD+) might be ineligible under Article 6.
The basis of the confusion comes down to the historical nomenclature of emissions avoidance being used regardless of the context for the calculation. In general climate change discussions, emissions avoidance is the first step in the mitigation hierarchy (avoid, minimize, restore, offset), referring to reducing emissions. In carbon markets, it sometimes refers to activities that don’t result in removing carbon from the atmosphere and is often used interchangeably with emission reduction. Some interpret it as preventing future emissions, compared to emission reduction, which is abating existing emissions. It has also been used in the context of proposals to compensate countries for not developing fossil fuel reserves. Another interpretation distinguishes it by agency, where proactive measures are emission reductions or removals (eligible), and lack of action is emission avoidance (ineligible).
In a helpful distinction, the GHG Institute suggests that emission avoidance should be used to describe the impact of interventions (consequential accounting). In this concept, reduction affects current emissions, whereas avoidance requires proactive intervention to prevent future ones.
As IETA points out, the SB60 decision to exclude emissions avoidance as an additional activity type under Article 6 does not mean that forestry and land-based carbon projects, including those based on REDD+-related methodologies, are ineligible under Article 6.. Instead, it references activities an organization may undertake to avoid emissions that would otherwise be counted toward their baseline emissions estimate. For example, if an organization has plans to open 5 new LNG plants, but instead only opens 2. They are avoiding emissions that would be otherwise included in their intervention planning, however, it wouldn’t be eligible for trading under Article 6.
To conclude, the debate around emission avoidance and the SB60 decision shouldn’t hinder the development of important carbon projects focused on forestry and land use. The key is how these activities are defined and categorized (reduction vs. avoidance, etc.). As Matt Delaney would say, “It’s all about the baseline!”
