Countries that decide to trade carbon credits under Article 6.2 are required to report information about these trades, which is then reviewed by a review team. This in turn is made public, unless a country considers certain information to be “confidential”. The rules governing “confidentiality” have not yet been agreed but will be discussed at COP27. Many countries are in favour of transparent reporting in Art 6.2, because they correctly don’t see a case for what information could justifiably qualify as confidential, given the high-level and non-controversial nature of the information to be reported about Article 6.2. However, some countries have suggested this provision for confidentiality should cover a lot of information. For example, the like-minded developing country negotiating group (LMDC) has suggested that all information submitted to the UNFCCC by a party should be considered confidential. This is a highly unconvincing argument. If such a blanket exemption to transparency were permitted, it would obscure the market, causing observers and market actors to justifiably distrust it. For the mechanism to have credibility, transparency must be the priority. Hence, all information about Article 6.2 should be public. Countries have an opportunity to make sure Article 6 sets a high bar on transparency, which would clearly set it aside from the lack of transparency on the voluntary carbon market.