CDM to Article 6.4 PACM: Details to Ensure Carbon Credit Quality During the Transition

December 23, 2025
6
min read

Table of contents

Sign up to our newsletter for the latest carbon insights.

TL;DR

PACM projects are on the horizon, and some CDM projects are transitioning to adopt the new methodologies. Keep reading to learn about this transition, how to ensure carbon credit quality during the change, and how to continue thriving in the voluntary carbon market.

The Supervisory Body (SBM) and Methodological Expert Panel (MEP) for the Article 6.4 Paris Agreement Crediting Mechanism (PACM) have made great strides in creating the essential guidance for methodologies. This is a crucial step towards launching the first PACM projects. Although it will take time to issue credits under these new PACM methodologies, some existing Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) projects are transitioning to the PACM.

This transition will lead to the first Article 6.4 Emission Reductions (6.4ERs), which can be used for both emissions reductions and carbon removal. A few CDM projects have already made the switch.

However, legitimate concerns persist regarding the quality of these transitioned credits, many of which fall into project categories rejected by the Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market (ICVCM).

Nevertheless, project participants are required to adopt PACM methodologies for crediting beyond 2025. This mandate demonstrates a clear intention to address environmental integrity issues and facilitates the initial operationalization and system development of the long-awaited PACM.

From the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) to the Paris Agreement Crediting Mechanism (PACM)

The Paris Agreement Article 6 recognizes two market-based mechanisms that countries can voluntarily use to achieve and increase the ambition of their targets or Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs).

  • Article 6.2 enables international cooperation under which buyers and sellers have some leeway regarding the activities to implement and the methodologies to follow to issue carbon credits, called Internationally Transferred  Mitigation Outcomes (ITMOs).
  • Article 6.4 covers the Paris Agreement Crediting Mechanism (PACM), a centralized UN-led international market whereby States and non-State entities can issue and trade carbon credits, called Article 6.4 Emission Reductions (6.4ERs). Said entities can also transfer the carbon credits they earn via climate change initiatives to help one or more countries meet their national targets.

The PACM is often referred to as the successor of the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism, established more than 20 years ago. The CDM allowed developed countries to finance carbon projects in developing countries by purchasing the resulting mitigation outcomes, and use the carbon credits called Certified Emission Reductions (CERs) to meet their targets. Unlike the Paris Agreement, under the Kyoto Protocol, only developed countries had mitigation targets and purchased CERs.

At COP30 in Brazil in November 2025, it was decided that the CDM would be wound up by the end of 2026, and USD 26.8M from the CDM Trust Fund would be transferred for the advancement of PACM. This is critical to address the latter's critical funding shortages, which are key to its implementation.

Under Article 6.4 rules, several active CDM projects have been deemed eligible to transition and continue operating under the PACM. Eventually, these projects will need to switch to PACM methodologies, expected to be more stringent under the new methodological standards.

A near-complete set of technical requirements for PACM methodologies has been adopted in the recent past. In 2024, standards for methodologies and carbon removals, together with a Sustainable Development Tool (SD Tool) that will be mandatory for all PACM projects, were developed by the Methodological Expert Panel (MEP) and adopted by the Article 6.4 Supervisory Body (SBM).

In 2025, standards for additionality, baselines, leakage, and permanence were developed and adopted, joining the previous two standards. While the MEP and SBM are further developing tools and guidance for PACM methodologies, the first PACM methodology, AMM001 for flaring or use of landfill gas, has already been adopted by the SBM in November 2025.  

For more details about these standards, how they were developed and adopted, and any associated risks, please refer to Sylvera’s Article 6 e-book.

CDM Transition Process for Eligible Activities

In early February of 2025, the UNFCCC published the latest standard and procedural documents for the transition process of CDM projects, including both individual projects, called Project Activities (PAs), and Programs of Activities (PoAs).


CDM PAs and POAs eligible to transition can submit a transition request to the UNFCCC Secretariat. The general deadline for PAs and PoAs was December 31, 2023, while afforestation and reforestation (A/R) projects have until December 31, 2025. Following the UNFCCC Secretariat review, the transition request is made publicly available

The host Party (i.e. the country where the project is located) then submits its approval to the SBM via its Designated National Authority (DNA) by 30 June 2026 (applies to all projects and PoAs except A/R, for which the approval timeline is unknown). Discussions at COP30 concluded with an extension of the deadline for host countries, which was originally 31 December 2025, to give them a bit more time. For multi-country PoAs, at least one host Party must approve the transition by this deadline.

Approved projects using CDM methodologies must submit additional documentation (for which a template is provided) demonstrating compliance with requirements under the standard. This includes details on addressing non-permanence risk, the environmental and social impacts of the activity, and requirements under the Article 6.4 SD Tool.

For A/R activities, compliance with the Standard: Requirements for activities involving removals under the PACM should also be met. This additional documentation must be submitted within 180 days of approval of transition, or by December 31, 2025, for A/R activities.

In addition to a longer submission deadline for transition requests, transitioned A/R projects or PoAs must also request that an SBM-accredited designated operational entity (DOE) validate additional documentation demonstrating compliance with A/R A6.4 requirements. This additional validation, which is not required for Emission Reduction activities until they transition to the PACM methodology, will occur at the same time as verification for the first issuance.

CDM Transition Status in the Voluntary Carbon Market

As of 03 December 2025, over a quarter (26.7%) of the registered PAs and almost half (45%) of the registered PoAs are eligible to transition to the PACM. Transition requests have been submitted by 41% of eligible projects, representing 67% (or 717M) of all eligible CDM project issuances to date.Similarly, transition requests have been submitted by 70% of eligible PoAs representing 87% (or 57M) of all eligible CDM PoA issuances to date. 

 Source: CDM activities in transition (UNFCCC), accessed 03 December 2025

China and India host the majority of projects and PoAs that have requested to transition, with roughly 36% and 33%, respectively. Although these two countries host the majority of the projects, neither has approved any transition request to date. 

           Source: UNEP Article 6 Pipeline, accessed 03 December 2025

However, only a small proportion of transitioning PAs and PoAs have been approved by their host country, and even fewer have gone on to obtain approval from the SBM before being registered.

Twenty-one countries, listed in the table below, have greenlighted the transition of some or all CDM activities that they host. At the time of writing, a total of 106 CDM activities (77 PAs and 29 PoAs) have been approved by these host countries, representing only 7% of transitioning activities. Only 15 of these have been approved by the SBM, and 14 have been registered.

The extension of the transition approval deadline from December 2025 to June 2026 at COP30 is therefore welcome to enable a more meaningful number of transitions from the CDM to PACM.

CDM Approval Status Table
Country Approved by the Host country only Approved by the Host country and SBM Registered
PA PoA Total PA PoA Total PA PoA Total
Bangladesh 7 4 11 5 2 7 5 2 7
Bhutan 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0
Burkina Faso 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Burundi 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cambodia 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
Chile 29 0 29 0 0 0 0 0 0
Dominican Republic 2 0 2 2 0 2 2 0 2
Egypt 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
El Salvador 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Georgia 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ghana 0 2 2 0 2 2 0 2 2
Jordan 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Madagascar 1 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0
Morocco 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Myanmar 2 2 4 0 2 2 0 2 2
Nepal 5 3 8 0 0 0 0 0 0
Oman 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pakistan 5 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 0
Panama 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sri Lanka 6 1 7 0 0 0 0 0 0
Uganda 3 3 6 0 1 1 0 0 0
Multiple hosts 0 10 10 0 1 1 0 1 1
TOTAL 77 29 106 7 8 15 7 7 14

           Source: UNFCCC, accessed 03 December 2025

The quality of CDM transition activities

Nearly 80% of CDM activities eligible to transition to the PACM, and have requested to do so, utilize grid-connected renewable energy methodologies.

Major carbon credit registries, including Verra and Gold Standard, stopped accepting new grid-connected projects in 2019, except those located in LDCs, as they were generally no longer considered additional. Also, these methodologies were rejected by the ICVCM, raising concerns about the environmental integrity of the credits generated, which are expected to be among the first to issue 6.4ERs.  

ACM0002 and AMS-I.D., respectively accounting for over 50% and 20% of the activities that have requested transition, are methodologies used to quantify emission reductions from renewable energy projects, but they differ in their scope and applicability. ACM0002 is generally used for large-scale grid-connected renewable energy projects, while AMS-I.D. is typically used for small-scale grid-connected projects. The average Sylvera rating for projects using ACM0002 is "C".

CDM Methodology Transition Table
Methodology Description Projects that requested to transition ICVCM Category ICVCM CCP status
Number %
ACM0002 Grid-connected electricity generation from renewable sources 762 50.6% Grid-Connected Renewable Energy Rejected
AMS-I.D. Grid connected renewable electricity generation 358 23.8%
AMS-I.C. Thermal energy production with or without electricity 26 1.7%
ACM0006 Electricity and heat generation from biomass 9 0.6%
1155 76.6%

The fragmented landscape of eligibility lists and quality initiatives presents a significant hurdle for buyers seeking eligible credits from projects with robust environmental integrity. These lists establish eligibility criteria and quality benchmarks through the evaluation of carbon standards and methodologies. This is insufficient, and project-level due diligence is needed to truly ascertain the quality and additionality of greenhouse gas emission reductions or removals

To support transparency and guide procurement strategies in the transition to PACM, Sylvera is currently rating CDM transition projects. These ratings will help ensure that carbon investment is directed towards the most impactful projects. 

FAQs about transitioning from CDM to Article 6.4 PACM

What is the difference between CDM activities and the Article 6.4 mechanism?

The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) was established under the Kyoto Protocol, while the Article 6.4 Paris Agreement Crediting Mechanism (PACM) is its successor under the Paris Agreement. PACM is expected to have more stringent methodologies and broader participation, with all countries now having climate targets under the Paris Agreement.

Why are there quality concerns about CDM projects transitioning to PACM?

Nearly 80% of transitioning CDM projects use grid-connected renewable energy methodologies that were rejected by the ICVCM and are no longer accepted by major registries due to additionality concerns. These projects may not represent genuine emission reductions beyond what would have happened anyway.

When do CDM projects need to transition to PACM methodologies?

CDM projects that have transitioned to PACM must adopt new PACM methodologies by the end of 2025. Afforestation and reforestation projects have extended deadlines until December 31, 2025, for transition requests.

What are Article 6.4 Emission Reductions (6.4ERs)?

6.4ERs are carbon credits issued under the Article 6.4 PACM, similar to how Certified Emission Reductions (CERs) were issued under the CDM. They represent verified emission reductions or removals under the new Paris Agreement framework.

Which countries are leading the CDM transition process?

China and India host the majority of projects requesting transition (36% and 33% respectively), though neither has approved any transitions yet. Countries like Bangladesh, Bhutan, Dominican Republic, Ghana, Myanmar, and Uganda have been more active in approving transitions.

About the author

Malavika Prasanna
Policy Associate

Malavika is a Policy Associate at Sylvera. She has a background in law, and has experience working in climate policy and carbon markets. As part of the policy team at Sylvera, she focuses on the Jurisdictional REDD+ landscape and emerging carbon market regulation. Her role also follows the CORSIA regime and its implications for carbon market participants within and beyond the international aviation sector.

Carmen Alvarez Campo
Jurisdictional Policy Lead

Carmen Alvarez Campo is a climate policy and carbon markets expert with a focus on international policy and jurisdictional approaches. Carmen has advise on the design and implementation of climate and carbon pricing policies at the national and international levels. Also, she has experience helping private sector organizations assess the transition risks and opportunities associated with carbon market and climate policy developments. At Sylvera, Carmen focuses on Article 6 and jurisdictional REDD+ approaches and helps the public and private sectors navigate these spaces from a buyer, investor and seller perspective.

Olivia MacDonald
Government Engagement

Olivia works across the Policy and Data Product and Partnerships team at Sylvera. Her background in environmental studies and climate policy includes research on science advice at the United Nations General Assembly, bringing a strong foundation in global climate governance. At Sylvera, she focuses on Government engagement through the UNDP and Sylvera’s Carbon Data Access Partnership (CaDAP) and Sylvera’s role in the Carbon Data Open Protocol (CDOP).

Explore our market-leading end-to-end carbon data, tools and workflow solutions