Response from the Climate Change Center about cookstoves project in Myanmar: “The Climate Change Center will continue to operate in accordance with applicable international standards and procedures”

“The Climate Change Center has never implemented this programme for the purpose of supporting or legitimizing any political actor or governing authority in Myanmar.”

Last week, REDD-Monitor wrote about a cookstove project in Myanmar. The project was the first to be approved by the UN’s Article 6.4 Supervisory Body to issue carbon credits under the Paris Agreement Crediting Mechanism.

The post was based on a report titled “Carbon credits under fire” published by the Global Forest Coalition, Myanmar Policy Institute, Plan 1.5, Biofuelwatch, and Gibson Climate Justice Lab.

The report highlights the fact that since the attempted military coup in January 2021, Myanmar has been in a civil war, with nearly 100,000 people killed and 3.8 million people displaced.

To carry out the carbon project, a South Korean NGO called Climate Change Center works with the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Conservation which is under the control of Myanmar’s military junta.

The report quotes Yadanar Maung, spokesperson for Justice for Myanmar, who points out that,

“Partnering with MONREC in a project tied to international carbon market mechanisms lends false legitimacy to the military junta and whitewashes its international crimes.”

REDD-Monitor received the following statement from the Climate Change Center. It is posted here in full:

Statement by the Climate Change Center on the Myanmar Improved Cookstove Programme (PoA 10471)

Recently, certain international civil society organizations published a report titled “Carbon Credits Under Fire” (hereinafter “the report”), raising concerns regarding the Climate Change Center’s Myanmar improved cookstove programme (PoA 10471). The Climate Change Center recognizes that international carbon market projects must uphold high standards of environmental integrity, transparency, and social responsibility, and we also acknowledge that scrutiny and critical review of such programmes are a necessary and legitimate part of their operation. Our position is set out below.

The Climate Change Center’s Myanmar improved cookstove programme (hereinafter “the programme”) was initiated in 2018, prior to the 2021 military takeover, as a CSR-linked initiative and formally implemented from 2019 as an international greenhouse gas mitigation programme. The programme was designed to improve household cooking conditions for vulnerable communities in Myanmar by distributing improved cookstoves, thereby reducing fuel consumption compliance and contributing to greenhouse gas mitigation. Beyond carbon credit generation, the programme aimed to deliver tangible co-benefits, including improved energy access, reduced household fuel expenditure, reduced pressure on forest resources, and reduced health-related burdens and improved living conditions, particularly for women and children.

The Climate Change Center has never implemented this programme for the purpose of supporting or legitimizing any political actor or governing authority in Myanmar. The origin of this programme lay not in political considerations, but in a civil society–based climate cooperation initiative aimed at improving the living conditions of climate-vulnerable communities and households in developing countries, and at achieving both greenhouse gas mitigation and sustainable development outcomes through the use of private climate finance.

We fully recognize the seriousness of Myanmar’s political, security, and human rights situation. We also take seriously the concerns raised regarding the continuation of the programme following the 2021 military takeover, and we acknowledge the need for careful review and clear explanation of these circumstances.

Following the military takeover, CCC did not simply assume that programme activities should continue unchanged. The organization undertook internal reviews of the evolving political, security, and humanitarian situation, including consideration of potential risks to participating households, implementation feasibility, and whether the programme could continue to deliver meaningful benefits to local communities without creating additional harm. Based on this comprehensive assessment, the decision to continue implementation was made only in locations where local conditions were assessed to allow responsible implementation.

While changes in political and security conditions are important factors in programme assessment, such changes alone do not automatically justify the termination of ongoing community-level development activities. Even in contexts of political instability, the daily lives of local communities continue. Households must still cook, access energy, and cope with fuel costs, indoor air pollution, and dependence on forest resources. In such environments, the need for basic energy, health, and livelihood support may in fact be even greater.

The Climate Change Center believes that communities facing energy poverty, environmental degradation, and climate vulnerability should not automatically lose access to climate and development support solely because of political circumstances beyond their control.

The Climate Change Center considers climate action and development cooperation to be mutually reinforcing rather than contradictory. In particular, for vulnerable populations affected simultaneously by energy poverty and climate impacts, an integrated approach that combines emissions reduction with improvements in living conditions is essential.

International development and climate programmes are often implemented in politically and socially fragile contexts. What is essential is not a political stance toward such contexts, but whether programmes deliver tangible benefits to communities and are implemented responsibly in accordance with applicable international standards.

The programme was established and approved under the pre-2021 government framework, and relevant host-country administrative procedures continued to be required under applicable carbon market rules even after the military takeover. Such procedural continuity should not be interpreted as political endorsement or support for any military authorities.

The report raises concerns regarding conflict in areas where the programme was implemented. However, the cited conflict data is typically aggregated at township or regional level, and conditions vary significantly at the village level within the same administrative area. The Climate Change Center assessed implementation feasibility at the community level and excluded or adjusted programme areas where security risks or conflict conditions made effective implementation difficult.

The report also questions the reliability of verification due to limited physical access. It is important to distinguish between project monitoring and third-party verification. Due to COVID-19-related restrictions and deteriorating security conditions in Myanmar, on-site access for third-party verifiers was limited in certain areas. However, this does not imply the absence of monitoring or verification procedures. The programme operated a structured monitoring system, including on-site field visits and assessments conducted by local implementation teams, as well as data management and quality assurance procedures. These activities covered the documentation of stove distribution, installation, and continued use, in line with applicable programme and methodological requirements.

In addition, the independent third-party verifier conducted its assessment based on a comprehensive review of monitoring data, sampling results, supporting documentation, and remote interviews. In light of the prevailing conditions in Myanmar at the time, the verifier utilized approved alternative procedures available under the applicable international carbon market rules. Although on-site verification is generally preferred, this remote approach was authorized under these exceptional circumstances. The subsequent verification, review, and issuance processes proceeded in accordance with mechanism requirements, including the Article 6.4 review process for the transitioned PACM issuance

The programme also maintained monitoring mechanisms to identify natural disasters and safety incidents. To date, no reports have been confirmed through the programme monitoring system indicating that participating households experienced direct safety incidents or harm in connection with programme participation.

The carbon market is an international cooperation mechanism designed to mobilize private finance for climate action in developing countries. Article 6.4 of the Paris Agreement includes independent verification and oversight processes to ensure environmental integrity and transparency. The Climate Change Center has complied with these procedures in implementing the programme.

With respect to claims of over-crediting, the report’s estimates are based on external academic analyses applying independent assumptions and recalculation methodologies. These results differ from those obtained through the approved methodologies and formal validation, verification, and review processes under the relevant carbon market framework. While methodological improvements remain an ongoing area of work under UNFCCC processes, the Climate Change Center supports efforts to enhance scientific rigor and accuracy. Uncertainties arising in areas where methodologies are still evolving and subject to refinement should not be interpreted as evidence of project-level deficiencies or misconduct.

The report also raises concerns regarding potential misuse of programme revenues or financial flows to Myanmar’s military authorities. The Climate Change Center is a public-interest foundation and confirms that no programme revenues have been transferred to the military authorities or any affiliated entities for the purpose of supporting government operations. Programme-related funds have been managed in accordance with applicable accounting standards and used exclusively for programme implementation and public-interest purposes. No private or institutional actors have derived improper financial benefit from the programme.

International mitigation projects involve a wide range of costs, including stove production and distribution, local implementation, monitoring, verification, and administrative operations. All expenditures were directed toward these legitimate programme-related activities. Administrative procedures required under host-country regulations were conducted in accordance with applicable legal requirements and should not be interpreted as constituting political or financial support for any governing authority.

The Climate Change Center reiterates its strong commitment to environmental integrity, transparency, and social responsibility in carbon market activities. We recognize the importance of constructive criticism and independent scrutiny in strengthening the credibility of international climate mechanisms. However, such assessments must be based on verifiable facts and a clear understanding of institutional and operational contexts.

The report does not sufficiently distinguish between Myanmar’s broader political, security, and human rights crisis and the operational realities of the programme, and in several instances connects these contextual conditions to project implementation as part of a single narrative without sufficient evidence of a direct causal relationship.

Constructive criticism and independent scrutiny are both necessary and important for the development of international carbon markets. However, the Climate Change Center does not agree with approaches that characterize the purpose and operational realities of the programme as inherently contrary to human rights, or that attribute such intent to all participating entities without sufficient examination of the underlying facts.

In particular, we regret that no factual verification process or request for clarification was made to the Climate Change Center during the preparation of the report. In our view, this limits the opportunity for a more balanced and evidence-based assessment and risks presenting a simplified interpretation of complex field conditions and institutional contexts, which may unintentionally reinforce negative perceptions of the programme and its implementing organization.

The Climate Change Center will continue to operate in accordance with applicable international standards and procedures, while ensuring transparent disclosure of relevant programme information and maintaining a strong focus on environmental integrity and community-level co-benefits. We will also continue to actively contribute to ongoing efforts to strengthen the integrity of international carbon markets, including methodological improvements, enhanced monitoring systems, and the development of more robust safeguard frameworks.

Furthermore, the Climate Change Center remains committed to advancing climate action grounded in its original purpose — addressing climate change and improving the livelihoods and well-being of vulnerable communities — rather than political considerations. We will continue to pursue responsible climate action even under challenging operating conditions.

June 15, 2026
Climate Change Center