How voluntary carbon markets can drive climate ambition

Abstract

Over the last three years, corporate interest in voluntary carbon markets has almost tripled, and this trend has seemed to resist the COVID-19 economic fallout. If managed well, this market has the potential to become a very significant driver of mitigation action, in particular in developing countries, which supply the majority of voluntary carbon offsets. Robust standards and rules can overcome concerns that voluntary carbon markets could lead to company greenwashing and undermine the goals of the Paris Agreement. On the contrary, voluntary corporate investments can encourage more ambitious government climate action, and encourage governments to make more ambitious pledges under the Paris Agreement. Multisectoral mitigation partnerships can ensure the complementarity of public and private action and support policy alignment and investments in priority sectors and regions.

KEYWORDS:

• Climate Policy
• Paris Agreement
• Corporate Climate Action
• Carbon Markets
• public-private partnerships

Notes

1 T Day and others, Navigating the Nuances of Net-Zero Targets (NewClimate Institute & Data-Driven EnviroLab, 2020) https://newclimate.org/2020/10/22/navigating-thenuances-of-net-zero-targets/ (accessed 3 February 2021).

2 United Nations, The Paris Agreement, C.N.92.2016.TREATIES-XXVII.7.d United Nations Treaty Collection § (2015).

3 Such pathways are developed, for example, by the science-based target initiative; see https://sciencebasedtargets.org accessed 10 January 2021.

4 S Donofrio and others, Voluntary Carbon and the Post-Pandemic Recovery (Forest Trends 2020) www.forest-trends.org/publications/state-of-the-voluntary-carbonmarkets-2020-2 (accessed 3 February 2021).

5 ‘Verra – Data and Insights – April 2020’ (Verra 2020, Q1) https://verra.org/datainsights/april-2020 accessed 10 January 2021.

6 Donofrio and others, Voluntary Carbon and the Post-Pandemic Recovery (n 4).

7 The Food and Land Use Coalition, Nature for Net Zero: Consultation Document on the Need to Raise Corporate Ambition Towards Nature-Based Net-Zero Emissions (December 2020) www.foodandlandusecoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/FOLU_Nature-for-Net-Zero_Report_Final.pdf accessed 2 January 2021.

8 NAZCA, Global Climate Action (UNFCCC 2021) http://climateaction.unfccc.int accessed 1 January 2021.

9 S Donofrio and others, The Only Constant Is Change (Forest Trends 2020) www.forest-trends.org/publications/state-of-the-voluntary-carbonmarkets-2020-2 (accessed 3 February 2021).

10 B Elgin, ‘JPMorgan, Disney, Blackrock Buy Nature Conservancy’s Useless Carbon Offsets’ Bloomberg Green (9 December 2020) www.bloomberg.com/features/2020-nature-conservancy-carbon-offsets-trees accessed 10 January 2021.

11 Donofrio and others (n 9).

12 The Food and Land Use Coalition (n 7).

13 BW Griscom and others, ‘Natural Climate Solutions’ (2017) 114(44) Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 11645; S Roe and others, ‘Contribution of the Land Sector to a 1.5°C World’ (2019) 9(11) Nature Climate Change 817.

14 The Food and Land Use Coalition (n 7).

15 The principle of ‘common but differentiated responsibility and respective capabilities’ is set out in Art. 3.1. UNFCCC. Under this principle, developed country parties are to provide financial, technological and capacity support to assist developing country parties in implementing the objectives of the climate regime.

16 J Brunnée and C Streck, ‘The UNFCCC as a Negotiation Forum: Towards Common But More Differentiated Responsibilities’ (2013) 13(5) Climate Policy 589.

17 T Chagas and others, A Close Look at the Quality of REDD+ Carbon Credits (Climate Focus 2020) www.climatefocus.com/publications/close-look-quality-redd-carboncredits (accessed 3 February 2021).

18 B Stephan, VW’s Carbon Footprint (Greenpeace 2020) www.greenpeace.de/sites/www.greenpeace.de/files/publicationsvw-engl.pdf (accessed 3 February 2021).

19 Donofrio and others (n 9).

20 Chagas and others (n 17).

21 M Carney and others, Taskforce on Scaling Voluntary Carbon Markets: Consultation Document (2020) www.iif.com/Portals/1/Files/TSVCM_Consultation_Document.pdf (accessed 3 February 2021).

22 A Rakatama and others, ‘Policy Forum: Improving the Acceptability of REDD+ Projects Among Local Households in Indonesia’ (2020) 116 Forest Policy and Economics 102172.

23 C Streck, ‘Who Owns REDD+? Carbon Markets, Carbon Rights and Entitlements to REDD+ Finance’ (2020) 11(9) Forests 959.

24 H Fearnehough and others, Future Role for Voluntary Carbon Markets in the Paris Era (New Climate Institute 2020) https://newclimate.org/2020/11/24/future-role-for-voluntary-carbonmarkets-in-the-paris-era (accessed 3 February 2021).

25 Gold Standard Foundation, ‘The Gold Standard’ Post 2020 Voluntary Carbon Market Principles (February 2020) www.goldstandard.org/blog-item/post-2020-voluntary-carbon-market-principles accessed 10 January 2021.

26 M Clemens and T Moss, What’s Wrong with the Millennium Development Goals? (Center for Global Development Brief, 2005).

27 S Dwyer, Z Johnson and R Zühr, ‘Financing for the Future: Climate Finance and the Role of ODA’ Donor Tracker (3 August 2020) https://donortracker.org/insights/financing-future-climate-finance-and-role-oda accessed 10 January 2021.

28 NYDF Assessment Partners, ‘New York Declaration on Forests: Progress Assessment’ New York Declaration on Forests (November 2020) https://forestdeclaration.org accessed 10 January 2021.

29 UNFCCC Secretariat, Nationally Determined Contributions (2021) www4.unfccc.int/sites/NDCStaging/Pages/All.aspx accessed 10 January 2021.

30 United Nations Environment Programme, The Emissions Gap Report 2020 (2020) www.unep.org/emissions-gap-report-2020 accessed 15 December 2020.

31 J Lister, ‘The Policy Role of Corporate Carbon Management: Co-regulating Ecological Effectiveness’ (2018) 9(4) Global Policy 538.

32 C Streck, ‘The Mirage of Madrid: Elusive Ambition on the Horizon’ (2020) 20(2) Climate Policy 143.

33 C Streck, ‘Filling in for Governments? The Role of the Private Actors in the International Climate Regime’ (2020) 17(1) Journal for European Environmental & Planning Law 5.

34 T Hickmann, ‘The Reconfiguration of Authority in Global Climate Governance’ (2017) 19(3) International Studies Review 430.

35 REDD+ is the official UNFCCC framework to encourage developing countries to reduce emissions from forests. See https://redd.unfccc.int accessed 10 January 2021.

36 The World Bank, Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (2021) www.forestcarbonpartnership.org accessed 10 January 2021.

37 Winrock International, Architecture for REDD+ Transactions | TREES (2021) www.artredd.org/trees accessed 10 January 2021.

38 P Graham and D Movius, International Mitigation Partnerships for Forests (Climate Advisers 2019), 19 https://climateadvisers.org/international-mitigation-partnerships-for-forests (accessed 3 February 2021).

39 Verra, ‘Jurisdictional and Nested REDD+ (JNR)’ (Verra 2021) https://verra.org/project/jurisdictional-and-nested-redd-framework accessed 10 January 2021.

40 AE Duchelle and others, ‘What Is REDD+ Achieving on the Ground?’ (2018) 32 Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 134.

41 L Pedroni and others, ‘Creating Incentives for Avoiding Further Deforestation: The Nested Approach’ (2009) 9(2) Climate Policy 207.

42 J Phelps, EL Webb, and WM Adams, ‘Biodiversity Co-Benefits of Policies to Reduce Forest-Carbon Emissions’ (2012) 2(7) Nature Climate Change 497.

43 P Newell and H Bulkeley, ‘Landscape for Change? International Climate Policy and Energy Transitions: Evidence from Sub-Saharan Africa’ (2017) 17(5) Climate Policy 650.

44 Streck, ‘Filling in for Governments’ (n 33).