- Formal negotiations
- Finance
- Global review
- Global report
- Digital sequence information
- Harmful subsidies
- Marine biodiversity
- Planning, monitoring, reporting and review
- Article 8(j) implementation
- Biodiversity and climate change
- Links with other bodies
- Around the COP
- Armenian presidency
- Protests
- Lobbying and influence
- Carbon and biodiversity markets
Martin Hession is Chair of the Article 6.4 Supervisory Body, which oversees the rules for the UN carbon market under the Paris Agreement, and Maria AlJishi is the body’s Vice Chair.
The recent adoption of new standards for the UN’s carbon market marks a key step for international climate cooperation, finally aligning offset crediting with the Paris Agreement and providing a benchmark for countries and investors in a world where all nations are expected to continuously raise their climate ambition.
As Chair and Vice-Chair of the Supervisory Body developing these rules, we are acutely aware that we serve a diverse set of actors. Our task is to steer a path that delivers climate ambition, supports country priorities, safeguards social and environmental integrity, and offers a reliable framework for investment.
At the core is a persistent question: are the rules effective in delivering real results and fair in balancing the interests of all those involved in the market?
Brazil seeks early deals on two stalled issues at Bonn climate talks
In the past two years, we’ve made important progress. We’ve adopted broad standards for how to calculate both emission reductions and emissions removals, established a system to manage the risk of emissions reversals, and introduced mandatory environmental and human rights safeguards and an independent grievance and appeals process. However, without a steady flow of investment, this progress will remain largely on paper.
Laying the foundation for greater ambition
With the adoption of the new baseline standard in May, we’ve entered a new phase, enabling more ambitious credits. We now have a clear and rigorous standard to guide the implementation of stronger crediting benchmarks. In today’s context, it offers a more realistic starting point for measuring credible emissions reductions and removals.
Under this benchmark, credits can only be claimed for reductions compared to conservative estimates of what would have occurred without the project. Projects can no longer earn credits for minor improvements over business-as-usual; they must use more conservative baselines that reflect growing climate ambition.
First carbon credit scheme for early coal plant closures unveiled
For example, a mechanism methodology may require crediting levels to be set at least 10% below historical emissions or benchmarked against best-in-class performance and then require a decline by at least 1% per year. This steady tightening ensures alignment with a net zero pathway, reduces the risk of over-crediting, and helps host countries retain more emission reductions, supporting future ambition.
The leakage standard is another important step, though more work remains to address emissions impacts at the national or sectoral level. Its goal is to make sure that projects reducing emissions in one place don’t cause emissions elsewhere. For example, if a reforestation project protects one area but displaces logging to a nearby region, the overall benefit could be lost. The standard requires projects to identify and track such indirect impacts and subtract them from the emissions cuts they claim.
Avoiding past mistakes
These technical standards are essential to ensuring environmental integrity. But their success also depends on trust and participation, particularly from countries hosting the carbon credit projects. As they weigh whether to approve credits and crediting programmes, they will understandably want to retain a share of the emissions reduction benefits from the investments. The new standards help address this, but more is needed.
The Paris Agreement Crediting Mechanism (PACM) already hardwires the roles and responsibilities of host countries into its processes. At our last meeting, we discussed how to strengthen communication and deepen engagement with host countries to ensure national policies and climate ambition are respected, and where requested, supported and enhanced.
Carbon credits have long faced scrutiny for overpromising and underdelivering. We are well aware of the need to avoid repeating past mistakes. From the outset, we’ve worked to improve on previous models, applying lessons learned.
UN approves carbon market safeguards to protect environment and human rights
The context for crediting has changed significantly since the early days of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), a benchmark for many voluntary programmes. While we will continue to build on CDM methodologies and experience, we must adapt them to a more ambitious framework, one that responds to host country expectations the CDM was never designed to meet.
We now move forward with renewed confidence. Our new rules allow for top-down updates to old carbon credit methodologies – meaning we can revise them centrally for key sectors. We’ve also received the first proposal for a brand-new methodology through the bottom-up process, where ideas come directly from project developers or local actors. And the first PACM credits could be issued later this year.
Scrutiny welcome
We’ve been criticised for moving slowly and for the complexity of our process. It has taken time to reach political agreement on the implementation framework for the new UN carbon market. But the positive reception of the framework we presented at the COP29 climate summit in Baku helped accelerate our progress. Thanks to the excellent work of our expert panels, we adopted detailed standards quickly. We believe these are both ambitious and clear.
Of course, there is more to do. Later this year, we’ll consider detailed rules to assess and insure against the risk of emissions reversals. We aim to see the full framework in action by early next year.
We are taking a practical, agile approach to implementation. The general standards set the direction; individual methodologies will be detailed but designed to evolve. Implementation will be phased, with space for continuous feedback and improvement.
We welcome scrutiny, not just for accountability, but as essential to our mission of fair and effective implementation for a high-integrity UN carbon market.
The post A credible UN carbon market needs rules that count – we’ve just set them appeared first on Climate Home News.
A credible UN carbon market needs rules that count – we’ve just set them
Continue Reading
Prepared by a coalition of nine Western Australian union, industry, conservation, and community organisations—including UnionsWA, the Conservation Council WA, and the Smart Energy Council—the WA Clean Energy, Jobs & Industry Plan provides a practical roadmap to transform Western Australia into a clean energy powerhouse while creating thousands of secure local jobs.
Western Australia stands at a pivotal crossroads: lead the global clean energy economy or watch investment, future industries, and secure jobs go elsewhere. The WA Clean Energy, Jobs & Industry Plan outlines a transformative blueprint to harness the state’s world-class solar and wind resources. Discover how legislated renewable targets, green iron manufacturing, and a dedicated regional training strategy can generate tens of thousands of local jobs, lower household bills, and build a resilient, net-zero future for all Western Australians.
WA needs a clear and forward-thinking plan if it is going to become a competitive renewable energy powerhouse and maintain its economic strength through the energy transition.
“Western Australians know a faster renewable energy transition will lower their household expenses and prevent harmful climate pollution. But the community also needs clear direction to ensure this transition will create jobs, lower costs and not cause undue environmental harm.
“Here, sectors representing a broad range of interests have laid the groundwork for those outcomes, clearly outlining what is needed to create a future for WA that is good for the environment, for the climate, for workers and for the economy.
Summary
The WA Clean Energy, Jobs & Industry Plan sets out a strategic roadmap to position Western Australia as a global clean energy superpower while creating thousands of secure local jobs.
The report establishes three overarching goals:
- Creating local employment.
- Maintaining industrial competitiveness.
- Lowering household energy costs
To realize this vision, the framework details actionable measures to follow on from the recent WA Government announcement of a 75% Renewable Energy Target by 2031 for the South West Interconnected System. This includes developing a statewide Renewable Energy Target, coordinating statewide workforce and training pipelines, strategically planning regional infrastructure to safeguard high-value biodiversity and cultural heritage, and ensuring equitable benefit-sharing through household electrification incentives and First Nations equity partnerships. Ultimately, the plan highlights that establishing clear policy and regulatory certainty will unlock lower energy bills, boost power reliability, and secure the state’s global competitiveness in emerging green commodity export markets.
Key Findings
- Statewide Renewable Energy Target and Emissions Reduction Targets: The report calls for a statewide RET and 1.5°C aligned emission reduction targets to remove policy risk, lower capital costs, and attract clean energy investment.
- Transformative Job Creation: Accelerating the transition offers massive employment prospects, including up to 8,800 solar and battery jobs by 2050, as well as 24,000 ongoing and 11,000 construction jobs in a commercial green iron industry.
- Industrial Electrification & Competitiveness: Requiring large gas users to adopt binding electrification timetables and providing concessional financing will protect existing energy-intensive manufacturers from rising energy costs and impending domestic gas shortfalls.
- Green Commodity Export Leadership: Western Australia can build new export markets in green iron, green ammonia, and offshore oil/gas decommissioning by constructing shared common-user infrastructure and setting dedicated Green Commodity Export Targets.
- Coordinated Workforce & Training Pipeline: To address critical skill shortages the plan recommends establishing a WA Clean Energy Jobs Plan 2050, three regional training hubs, and dedicated pathways for female and under-represented apprentices.
- Environmental Safeguards & Community Benefits: Fast-tracked development must be paired with State Planning Policies that avoid high-biodiversity and cultural heritage lands, mandate new data centres to run on additional renewable power, and deliver household electrification rebates and First Nations equity partnerships.
What you can do
WA has an opportunity to lead on sustainable, clean energy and associated industries. You can help by:
- Sending an email to Environment Minister Murray Watt and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, calling on them to reject Browse.
- Sharing this story to help more Australians understand what’s at stake.
- Encouraging your friends and family to take action.
Countries have completed the first “global review” of their progress towards reversing nature loss by 2030 at the COP17 biodiversity talks in Yerevan, Armenia.
The review “notes with deep concern” that, unless action is “rapidly accelerated”, the goal to reverse nature loss and meet a set of 23 targets by 2030 “will not be achieved”.
It “urges” countries to accelerate action, including by “increased ambition in addressing the gaps”.
Much of the discussions in Yerevan focused on how to raise the necessary funds to help developing countries protect nature.
Some major economies pushed to expand the range of nations that are expected to provide finance, with countries agreeing at the end of the two weeks of talks that non-donors that want to contribute can “signal interest” before COP18.
This came after developed countries failed to meet a target to significantly ramp up nature finance over the last few years.
It also came as a landmark fund agreed at COP16 in Colombia to pay communities for the genetic resources derived from nature stands nearly empty two years on.
The Yerevan talks marked the halfway point of the “Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework” (GBF), the “Paris Agreement for nature” first made in 2022 and due to be achieved by 2030.
During the nearly 12-hour-long final plenary, countries voted for Quito, Ecuador, to host the COP18 nature talks, which will be held in 2028.
Countries managed to sign off on all the major negotiation texts, marking a stark contrast to COP16, which ran so far over time that the Colombian presidency lost “quorum”, forcing talks to resume in Rome months later.
Below, Carbon Brief has detailed analysis of all of the key outcomes from COP17.
Formal negotiations
Finance
Finance, predictably, was at the heart of the discord and deadlock at the Yerevan talks.
At COP17, discussions on finance had to achieve several outcomes.
The first part – to take stock of biodiversity finance mobilised so far to meet the nature deal’s goals – fell under the global review.
As the global report noted, developed countries failed to meet their commitments to raise “at least $20bn a year by 2025” for nature. Delegates pointed to falling aid levels and a sharp 27% decline in environmental funding for the 2026-30 period.
The second part was to agree on how to mobilise resources for the next four years, to meet the GBF’s goals and targets.
Calls to “broaden the contributor base” of who pays to protect nature – and whether that should include emerging economies – became the most fraught element of the talks.
Eventually, countries agreed on what Switzerland described as a “super, mega-delicate” text. It hinged on major “political compromises”, with “no major winner or loser”, according to Kenya.
Per the decision, countries that want to be included on a list of developed country donors can “signal interest” through bilateral, confidential consultations before COP18 and every alternate COP after.
Finally, countries also agreed on criteria to shape and resource a new, permanent financial mechanism to protect nature after 2030.
However, this did not immediately take the form of a new fund under the COP that biodiverse countries have demanded since 2022, deferring the mechanism’s institutional structure to COP18.
Resource mobilisation discussions at the GBF’s halfway mark were supposed to agree on how to close the “biodiversity finance gap” and to “increase resources from all sources” to “at least” $200bn per year by 2030, as set out in target 19 of the GBF.
The talks were largely dominated by a push, led by the JUSCANZ bloc of developed countries, to “broaden the contributor base”. This could see emerging economies, such as Qatar, China, Saudi Arabia and India, being added to the list of countries that pay to protect nature.
Article 20 of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) states that developed countries “shall provide new and additional financial resources” to developing countries to meet the costs of implementing measures to protect nature.