Abstract
Over the past two decades, the emergence of multiple carbon market segments has led to fragmentation of governance of international carbon markets. International baseline-and-credit systems for greenhouse gas mitigation have been repeatedly expected to wither away, but show significant resilience. Still, Parties to the Paris Agreement have struggled to finalize rules for market-based cooperation under Article 6, which are still being negotiated. Generally, there is tension between international top-down and bottom-up governance. The former was pioneered through the Clean Development Mechanism under the Kyoto Protocol and is likely to be utilized for the Article 6.4 mechanism, while the latter was used for the first track of Joint Implementation and will be applied for Article 6.2. Voluntary carbon markets governed bottom-up and outside the Kyoto Protocol by private institutions have recently gained importance by offering complementary project types and methodological approaches. The clear intention of some Parties to use market-based cooperation in order to reach their nationally determined contributions to the Paris Agreement have led to an ongoing process of navigating the alignment of these fragmented carbon market instruments with the implementation of nationally determined contributions and Paris Agreement’s governance architecture. We discuss emerging features of international carbon market governance in the public and private domain, including political and technical issues. Fragmented governance is characterized by different degrees of transparency, centralization, and scales. We assess the crunch issues in the Article 6 negotiations through the lens of these governance features and their effectiveness, focusing on governance principles and their operationalization to ensure environmental integrity and avoid double counting.
Highlights
International markets for greenhouse gas (GHG) mit‐ igation credits have seen a tumultuous history over the past two decades (Michaelowa, Shishlov, et al, 2019)
There is tension between international top‐down and bottom‐up governance. The former was pioneered through the Clean Development Mechanism under the Kyoto Protocol and is utilized for the Article 6.4 mechanism, while the latter was used for the first track of Joint Implementation and will be applied for Article 6.2
Despite uncertainties relating to the anticipated wind‐down of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and lack of agreement on the rules for market‐based cooperation under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement (PA), there is a flurry of early Article 6 pilots (Greiner et al, 2020)
Summary
International markets for greenhouse gas (GHG) mit‐ igation credits (hereafter referred to as “credits”) have seen a tumultuous history over the past two decades (Michaelowa, Shishlov, et al, 2019). Record‐high vol‐ umes of credits are being transacted on the voluntary carbon markets (VCM; Trove Research, 2021). These dif‐ fering fortunes of various strands of international car‐ bon markets result from a process of fragmentation that accelerated after the failure to agree on a new global climate policy regime at the Copenhagen climate con‐ ference in late 2009 (Bernstein et al, 2010; Lövbrand & Stripple, 2012). This article seeks to answer the ques‐ tion of whether fragmentation and institutional complex‐ ity will eventually result in the withering of all or some international carbon market segments, or whether the paradigm shift through the PA and new approaches to governance will lead to a flourishing of reconfigured car‐ bon market instruments. We conclude with our view on which components of international carbon markets are likely to wither away due to governance challenges, and which ones are likely to thrive
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.