Refine
Year of Publication
Document Type
- Working Paper (24)
- Report (22)
- Peer-Reviewed Article (18)
- Contribution to Periodical (17)
- Part of a Book (2)
This paper analyses the risks to environmental integrity associated to the transfers of mitigation outcomes in the context of Art. 6 of the Paris Agreement and provides an overview on approaches and tools that could be used for addressing them. The analysis shows that some of the environmental integrity risks can be dealt with at the technical level. This relates, inter alia, to the risks of mitigation outcomes being unreal or non-permanent as well as to carbon leakage and rebound effects. Here, robust MRV provisions should be established. Other risks will be difficult to address without touching the new and open structure of the Paris Agreement. This applies, for example, to risks associated to the diverse nature of NDCs, and requires further investigation.
On the one hand, a large number of companies have committed to achieve net zero emissions and many of them foresee to offset some remaining emissions with carbon credits, suggesting a surge of future demand. Yet, the supply side of the voluntary carbon market is struggling to align its business model with the new legal architecture of the Paris Agreement. This article juxtaposes these two perspectives. It provides an overview of the plans of 482 major companies with some form of neutrality/net zero pledge and traces the struggle on the supply side of the voluntary carbon market to come up with a viable business model that ensures environmental integrity and contributes to achieving the objectives of the Paris Agreement. Our analysis finds that if carbon credits are used to offset remaining emissions against neutrality objectives, these credits need to be accounted against the host countries' Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) to ensure environmental integrity. Yet, operationalizing this approach is challenging and will require innovative solutions and political support.
Key policy insights:
There is a growing mismatch between the faith placed in carbon credits by private sector companies and the continued quest for a common position of the main suppliers of the voluntary carbon market.
The voluntary carbon market has not yet found a way to align itself with the new legal architecture of the Paris Agreement in a credible and legitimate way.
Public policy support at the national and international level will be needed to operationalize a robust approach for the market’s future activities.
Africa and in particular African Least Developed Countries have to a large extent been neglected by the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). This article reviews the mechanism's performance in the region and highlights current developments. The analysis is based on a quantitative breakdown of data provided by the United Nations Environment Programme and Technical University of Denmark (UNEP/DTU) CDM Pipeline and was complemented by interviews with selected investors. The findings indicate that despite the various support measures for underrepresented regions, the overall share of African CDM activities continues to be low. The significant rise in the share of Programmes of Activities of recent years cannot make up for the continuing low numbers of African stand-alone projects. Further, the collapse of the compliance market has proved fatal in terms of timing: ongoing efforts to support the development of a genuine African carbon market were suffocated by the lack of demand for Certified Emission Reductions at a moment when capacity building had started to bear fruit. Consequently, instead of being a mitigation tool with significant scale, the future role of the CDM in Africa might be limited to the voluntary market, while at the same time serving as a tool to foster sustainable development, with mitigation benefits.
The Paris Agreement adopted in December 2015 provides the basis for future international cooperation on the field of climate change mitigation. While truly global in reach, the agreement will however result in an increasingly complex new climate regime: Instead of using a uniform formula, Parties are allowed to autonomously define their NDCs (nationally determined contributions), resulting in a large diversity of contributions. This poses significant challenges for emissions accounting and the transfer of emission units.
This Policy Paper explores how these challenges can be addressed by analysing different types of NDCs and assessing their compatibility with the export and use of emission units. On that basis, the authors develop opt-in provisions for Parties willing to participate in unit transfers under the new climate regime and illustrate how potential risks to environmental integrity can be addressed.
With the adoption of Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, former debates about generating carbon credits on the basis of national policies have resurged. National policies have not been eligible as project activities under the Kyoto Protocol's flexible mechanisms. The Paris Agreement opens the possibility for such policy crediting but also provides an entirely new context: Universal participation, ambitious long-term targets and nationally defined contributions (NDCs) that are to be made more ambitious over time. As this paper shows, these changes in the framework conditions add an additional layer of complexity to policy-based cooperation.
The paper explores the potential for policy-based cooperation by first briefly presenting the regulatory basis provided by the Paris Agreement before outlining a prototype for policy-based cooperation and its key challenges.
This report explores the future role of the voluntary carbon market and its potential to contribute to raising the ambition of climate policy. For this purpose, desk research was complemented by interviews with voluntary carbon market representatives. The report finds that the current roles of the voluntary market are set to change fundamentally due to the Paris Agreement. For the future of the voluntary market as an investor, three roles were identified, each of which is associated with specific challenges: The market may maintain its current role of buyer of carbon neutrality credits, it may become a supporter of NDC implementation, or it may become a driver of ambition. With regard to the future role of private certification standards, the Paris Agreement may hold the possibility of using such standards in the context of compliance activities. Overall, the findings indicate that the voluntary market has some potential to contribute to ambition raising. Whether this potential will actually be unlocked depends on how the concept of ambition raising will be operationalized under the Paris Agreement and to what degree it can be integrated into the voluntary market's activities and business models.
As the climate crisis is accelerating and the pressure to act is steadily increasing, many companies are claiming themselves or their products carbon neutral. This is usually achieved by offsetting residual emissions with carbon certificates (carbon offsetting). However, recent revelations about the inadequate quality of carbon credits and legal uncertainties surrounding the use of such offset claims are increasingly raising doubts about this approach.
This Wuppertal Report examines how the EU can promote integrity in corporate climate action. Taking into account the new framework of the Paris Agreement, the paper outlines various options for how the EU could push for more integrity and effectively combat greenwashing through the targeted use of Article 6 of the Paris Agreement.
In their recommendations, the authors advocate addressing the most serious consequences of ongoing offset practices through increased regulation of offset claims. If a ban on offset claims cannot be implemented, claims requirements and carbon offset regulations should be further specified, for example, by prohibiting any type of double counting of emissions reductions. In addition to tightening the rules for corporate offset claims within Europe, the EU could help partner countries make informed decisions when approving climate change mitigation measures and respective carbon credits. The report also emphasizes the EU's special role in international climate negotiations, where it should advocate for a strong legal framework for climate action under Article 6.
Die Analyse erläutert die Funktionsweise des globalen Kohlenstoffmarkts und wie dieser von Unternehmen zur CO2-Kompensation bei der Erfüllung ihrer freiwilligen Klimaschutzziele genutzt wird. Vor dem Hintergrund der veränderten Rahmenbedingungen des Übereinkommens von Paris stellen die Autoren dar, mit welchen Herausforderungen der Kohlenstoffmarkt konfrontiert ist und wie diese durch Nutzung einer Alternative zur CO2-Kompensation überwunden werden können.
The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) is in crisis. More and more market participants are leaving the sector. In the light of this development, some argue that governments should step in as buyers of Certified Emission Reductions (CERs). Given the limited volumes of public funding, however, governments will have to prioritise some projects over others. This policy brief therefore analyses national purchase programmes and multilateral carbon funds in order to identify criteria public investors are applying in the selection of the projects they finance. The aim is to identify a vision of a high quality CDM project that be can be made use of when designing a possible support programme.
Immer mehr Unternehmen verkünden, klimaneutral sein zu wollen und zahlreiche Firmen bieten bereits klimaneutrale Produkte oder Dienstleistungen an: Von der klimaneutralen Paketzustellung bis zur Flugreise. Doch was bedeuten die Neutralitätsziele der Unternehmen genau? Ist das gesetzte Ziel ambitioniert? Und welche Rolle spielt Offsetting, also der Ankauf von Klimaschutzzertifikaten und deren Anrechnung auf das eigene Klimaschutzziel? Die hinter den verkündeten Zielen stehenden Ansätze sind häufig nur schwer nachvollziehbar. Vor diesem Hintergrund gibt der vorliegende Zukunftsimpuls zehn Empfehlungen für die Festlegung und Umsetzung von Neutralitätszielen. Die Autorinnen und Autoren sprechen sich dabei unter anderem für die Nutzung einer robusten Datenbasis als Grundlage für Neutralitätsziele aus, betonen die Bedeutung einer transparenten Kommunikation und zeigen auf, welche Rolle Offsetting spielen sollte. So sollten angekaufte Klimaschutz-Zertifikate einen möglichst begrenzten Beitrag zur Zielerfüllung leisen und ausschließlich zum Ausgleich von Emissionen genutzt werden, die nicht reduziert oder vermieden werden können. Insgesamt sollten Neutralitätsziele nicht zum alleinigen Kriterium für ambitionierten Klimaschutz von Unternehmen gemacht werden, sie stellen vielmehr ein Baustein einer weitaus umfassenderen unternehmerischen Klimaschutzstrategie dar.
More and more companies are announcing their intention to become climate-neutral and numerous companies already offer climate-neutral products or services: From climate-neutral parcel delivery to air travel. But what exactly do the companies' net-zero targets mean? Is the target set ambitious? And what role does offsetting play, i.e., purchasing carbon credits that are accounted against the company's own climate target? The approaches behind the proclaimed targets are often difficult to understand. Against this background, this Zukunftsimpuls provides ten recommendations for the definition and implementation of neutrality targets. Among other things, the authors advocate the use of a robust database as the basis for net-zero targets, emphasize the importance of transparent communication, and highlight the role that offsetting should play. Purchased carbon credits should make as limited a contribution as possible for meeting climate targets and should only be used to offset emissions that cannot be reduced or avoided. More generally, net-zero targets should not be made the sole criterion for ambitious climate strategies. Rather, they are a building block of a much more comprehensive strategy of corporate climate action.
The Glasgow climate conference marked a symbolic juncture, lying half-way between the adoption of the UNFCCC in 1992 and the year 2050 in which according to the IPCC special report on the 1.5°C limit net zero CO2 emissions need to be reached, globally, in order to maintain a good chance of achieving the 1.5°C limit. This article undertakes an assessment of what the UNFCCC and in particular the Paris Agreement and its implementation process have actually achieved so far up to and including the results of the Glasgow conference. The article discusses efforts at ambition raising both within and outside the formal diplomatic process, the finalization of the implementation rules of the Paris Agreement, as well as progress on gender responsiveness, climate finance, adaptation and loss and damage. In summary, the Paris Agreement and its implementation can be considered a success as it is having a discernible impact on the behavior of parties as well as on non-party actors. However, significant further efforts will be required to actually achieve the objectives of the Agreement.
2020 was meant to be the year of climate ambition. Then the COVID-19 pandemic struck, the Glasgow conference was postponed to November 2021, and climate policy generally appeared to have been put on the backburner. But towards the end of the year prospects seemed to brighten with a series of zero-emission pledges and the election of Joe Biden as US President. This article analyses what the year of the pandemic achieved in terms of combating climate change. This article first summarizes the virtual events that were organised to substitute for the physical UNFCCC conferences and what progress was or was not made on the outstanding items of the "Paris rulebook", implementation of the Gender Action Plan, and other items. Subsequently, the article surveys the status of NDC updates and to what extent recovery programmes have been used to advance climate action. Finally, the article takes a closer look at the current dynamics among non-Party actors. In summary, while formal negotiations essentially stopped in the year of the pandemic, the conservation did not. However, implementation is still lagging far behind the ambitious targets that have been set. While implementation is mostly the domain of national policy, the international process has a number of options at its disposal to foster climate action.