Article 6.4 Methodologies: How REDD+ Developers in Africa Can Access ITMO Markets with Corresponding Adjustments

The Article 6.4 Supervisory Body's approval of the REDD+ Activity Framework in mid-2025, following the broader Article 6.4 rulebook finalisation at COP29 in Baku, created the first formal methodology pathway for existing VCS REDD+ projects to generate Article 6.4 Emission Reductions (A6.4ERs) with host-country authorisation and corresponding adjustments. For African REDD+ project developers who have been watching the Article 6 negotiations from the sidelines, this is the moment the pipeline opens.

But 'the pathway exists' and 'the pathway is straightforward' are different statements. The methodology and procedural requirements for transitioning a VCS REDD+ project to A6.4ER generation are layered, technically demanding, and involve coordination between the project developer, the host country government, the Article 6.4 Supervisory Body, and a new category of validator, the Article 6.4 Designated Operational Entity (DOE). This article is a structured methodology review of those requirements, focused specifically on what African REDD+ project developers need to understand and do.

The Two Pathways to Article 6.4 for REDD+ Projects

There are two distinct pathways through which an African REDD+ project can access A6.4ER generation. The first is the transition pathway: an existing VCS-registered REDD+ project applies to the Article 6.4 Supervisory Body to have its emission reductions recognised as A6.4ERs, without abandoning its VCS registration. The project continues under its existing VCS methodology (typically VM0007) and monitoring plan, and the A6.4 layer adds the host-country authorisation, corresponding adjustment process, and A6.4 registry issuance. Credits are dual-registered, on both the Verra registry and the UNFCCC A6.4 registry, with the developer choosing which registry issuance to offer to buyers.

The second is the standalone A6.4 pathway: a new REDD+ project, or an existing project that has not yet registered under VCS, registers directly under the Article 6.4 framework from inception, using a methodology approved by the Article 6.4 Supervisory Body. The A6.4 REDD+ Activity Framework provides the methodology structure; the project does not receive VCS registration and issues only A6.4ERs. This pathway is cleaner procedurally but narrower in terms of buyer market access, since A6.4ERs without VCS co-registration cannot access the VCS-standard voluntary market buyer pool.

What the A6.4 REDD+ Activity Framework Actually Requires

The Article 6.4 REDD+ Activity Framework, approved by the Supervisory Body following a technical review process in 2025, specifies the methodology requirements for REDD+ activities seeking A6.4ER generation. The framework is largely aligned with VM0007's technical requirements, which was intentional, the Supervisory Body designed it to enable VCS REDD+ projects to transition without fundamental rework of their baseline and monitoring systems. The key technical requirements are:

The Host Country Authorisation Process in Practice

The host country authorisation letter is the single most critical and most uncertain element of the A6.4 transition pathway for African REDD+ projects. The LoA must come from the host country's Designated National Authority (DNA), in Kenya, this is the Climate Change Directorate under the Ministry of Environment; in Tanzania, NEMC and the Vice President's Office jointly; in Uganda, NEMA. The DNA must confirm: the project's eligibility for A6.4 registration; the volume of corresponding adjustments the host country is prepared to make in each issuance year; and that the project's FRELs are consistent with the national FREL architecture.

Kenya opened its A6.4 project authorisation window in March 2026, with the Climate Change Directorate publishing an application process for project developers seeking LoAs. The application requires: a project summary including VCS registration details; a FREL reconciliation analysis showing how the project FREL relates to Kenya's national FREL and its Nairobi-Naivasha-Meru subnational disaggregation; confirmation of no double-counting with other NDC instruments; and evidence of community and landowner consent. The review process is expected to take 6–9 months for first-round applications.

Tanzania's DNA has not yet published its A6.4 authorisation framework. Ethiopia's DNA is understood to be in the process of developing its Article 6.2 bilateral agreements first, with the A6.4 window expected to open in late 2026. DRC's DNA, critical given that DRC hosts some of the continent's largest VCS REDD+ credit volumes, faces significant institutional capacity constraints in processing A6.4 applications at scale.

Pricing Impact: What ITMOs with CAs Are Worth

The pricing differential between A6.4ERs with corresponding adjustments (ITMOs) and standard VCS VCUs from the same project is the commercial rationale for the transition. In Q1 2026, East African VCS REDD+ credits from established projects are trading in the $8 to $16 per tonne range, with price variability driven by vintage, project vintage, CCB certification, and liquidity. A6.4ERs from the same projects, where LoAs have been issued and corresponding adjustments are being made, are achieving $28 to $55 per tonne in bilateral transactions with sovereign buyers under Japan's JCM framework and Switzerland's Article 6.2 agreements.

The spread, $20 to $40 per tonne, reflects the scarcity of supply (few REDD+ projects have yet completed the A6.4 transition) and the structural demand from sovereign buyers whose only compliant purchase option is ITMO with corresponding adjustment. For a project issuing 300,000 VCUs per year, transitioning even 30% of issuance to A6.4ER with corresponding adjustment, 90,000 ITMOs at $35 per tonne versus 210,000 VCUs at $12 per tonne, generates a blended revenue uplift of approximately $1.6 million per issuance year.

What Developers Should Do Now

For African VCS REDD+ project developers with existing registrations, the immediate actions are: first, conduct a FREL reconciliation analysis, compare your project's reference region FREL with the host country's national FREL and its subnational disaggregation to understand whether material discrepancies exist that would require rework; second, engage your host country's DNA to understand the A6.4 authorisation process, timeline and application requirements in your jurisdiction; third, confirm that your current VVB also holds DOE accreditation under the A6.4 framework (or identify an alternative DOE) to avoid validation delay when the ADD is ready.

For projects not yet registered under VCS but in early development, the decision between VCS registration, standalone A6.4, or dual registration should be made as part of the project's standard selection process, not deferred until the project is ready to submit. The ADD and PDD processes are different enough that retrofitting one onto the other adds time and cost. Projects designed for A6.4 from inception, with FREL construction aligned to the national FREL from day one, and DNA engagement initiated at the pre-feasibility stage, will reach the ITMO market faster and with lower rework cost than transition projects.