- 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
A key oversight body set up to improve the quality of carbon credits has been called into question by members of its expert board, two of whom recently resigned in protest over its decision to endorse offset rules they say lack integrity.
Last month, the Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market (ICVCM) gave its high-quality label to three methodologies for producing carbon offsets that aim to reduce deforestation under so-called REDD+ projects – the first to be approved for forest offsets.
The watchdog said at the time that the new forest carbon credit rules would “usher in a new generation of high-integrity projects” as they addressed concerns with previous REDD+ methodologies that came under fire for overstating their emissions-cutting benefits.
But carbon market experts Lambert Schneider and Juerg Fuessler have now come out publicly against the decision which they say sets a “problematic precedent” and calls into question the ICVCM’s assessment process. They both announced this week they had stepped down from the body’s expert panel which plays an advisory role in the ICVCM’s decision-making. Schneider formally left the post in September.
Divisions in ICVCM’s ‘big tent’
The ICVCM was set up to address widespread concerns over the quality of carbon credits and inject more credibility into the market. The watchdog assesses guidelines used to develop offsetting projects to determine whether they comply with the “Core Carbon Principles” (CCP) criteria, which are designed to identify and encourage high-integrity credits that meet requirements on governance, emissions reduction and sustainable development.
A spokesperson for the ICVCM told Climate Home that the body “purposefully built a ‘big tent’, seeking out diverse experience and expertise”. Members of civil society, academia and the corporate world – including the carbon offsetting industry – provide input into the ICVCM’s rulings on carbon credit methodologies.
Why rich countries are “reluctant” on additional JETP coal-to-clean deals
Its working group on REDD+ – which operates separately from the expert panel – included representatives from Amazon, forestry project developer Wildlife Works, carbon standards like Verra and ART, and non-profits like the World Resources Institute and the Environmental Defense Fund, among others.
The spokesperson said that having “all perspectives” included in the process “inevitably produces disagreements on specific issues and even on assessment decisions”, and described that as a “strength” rather than a weakness. But, they added, “overall the assessment process found that the methodologies have robust approaches in place to mitigate environmental risks”.
Integrity ‘at risk’
Schneider, a research coordinator for international climate policy at Germany’s Oeko-Institut, disagreed, telling Climate Home the approval of the REDD+ methodologies threatens the oversight body’s mission.
“In our assessment, the three methodologies do not comply with ICVCM’s criteria,” he said. “That presents a risk to the integrity of the initiative,” he added.
ICVCM greenlit two methodologies proposed by leading carbon standard Verra and one developed under the ART Trees programme.
In a joint online post, Schneider and Fuessler, along with two other experts involved with the ICVCM, wrote that although the new rulebooks for forest carbon projects offer improvements on previous versions, they still run the risk of generating low-integrity credits.
That, they argue, is because of the ways project developers are able to estimate how much deforestation would occur without the project, demonstrate that funding from carbon credits is needed (known as “additionality”), and counter the risk of carbon being released back into the atmosphere, for example as a result of wildfires.
“Given the large size of these activities, we fear that the current methodologies could lead to large volumes of credits not backed by any actual emission reductions,” the experts concluded.
Continued monitoring
The ICVCM spokesperson told Climate Home that some of the risks raised by the experts “were not likely to be material due to external factors such as global deforestation trends”, without elaborating further, while others would be effectively addressed through the approach used in the methodology.
The spokesperson also added that the ICVCM will monitor the implementation of the methodologies and remain “attentive to integrity risks in their application”.
No credits have been issued so far under the three approved methodologies for forest projects, but the body said that “there is a large volume of credits in the pipeline”.
Hundreds of millions of REDD+ offsets have been issued under older methodologies but have faced widespread criticism over their alleged lack of real emissions reductions and weakness in protecting environmental and human rights. The ICVCM did not assess the criteria for these earlier projects, and producers of those credits will not be able to claim the high-integrity CCP label unless they switch to the approved methodologies.
Tiered system?
Schneider said the ICVCM had set a “relatively ambitious” benchmark, but for now “the problem is that the number of high-quality credits that meet that level is quite low”.
He added that the body could have chosen a different approach if it wanted to “distinguish the grey from the black”, referring to projects that are judged to have varying degrees of integrity.
“You could do this by introducing a tiered system instead of just setting one bar,” Schneider said.
The ICVCM spokesperson said the body’s approval process for its high-quality offsets label “is built intentionally to get many perspectives, not to force people into consensus”. There are 26 members in its advisory groups, and four of them disagreed with the REDD+ conclusion, the spokesperson added.
(Reporting by Matteo Civillini; editing by Megan Rowling)
The post Experts quit carbon market watchdog in row over quality label for forest credits appeared first on Climate Home News.
Experts quit carbon market watchdog in row over quality label for forest credits
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.