Co-benefits Under the Market Mechanisms of the Paris Agreement

Michaelowa, Axel; Espelage, Aglaja; Hoch, Stephan

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-30978-7_3

Cited by 11 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Articles 6.4–6.7, which are of particular importance in the context of this paper, establish mechanisms that both contribute to the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions and mainly for distributional reasons, to support SD in poorer countries. Those mechanisms may share similarities with the CDM (Michaelowa et al , 2019a). In Articles 6.8–6.9, the importance of non-market approaches is recognized, but it still has to be specified how these approaches are to be executed and as is stated on a UNFCCC (2020) website, the non-market approaches mechanism can presently “be anything and everything, provided it’s not market-based”.…”

Section: Cooperative Approaches In Accordance With Article 6 Of the Paris Agreementmentioning

confidence: 97%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Overstraining international climate finance: when conflicts of objectives threaten its success

Buchholz

Rübbelke

2021

IJCCSM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Climate finance is regularly not only seen as a tool to efficiently combat global warming but also to solve development problems in the recipient countries and to support the attainment of sustainable development goals. Thereby, conflicts between distributive and allocative objectives arise, which threaten the overall performance of such transfer schemes. Given the severity of the climate change problem, this study aims to raise concerns about whether the world can afford climate transfer schemes that do not focus on prevention of (and adaptation to) climate change but might be considered as a vehicle of rent-seeking by many agents. Design/methodology/approach Future designs of international transfer schemes within the framework of the Paris Agreement are to be based on experience gained from existing mechanisms. Therefore, the authors examine different existing schemes using a graphical technique first proposed by David Pearce and describe the conflicts between allocative and distributional goals that arise. Findings In line with the famous Tinbergen rule, the authors argue that other sustainability problems and issues of global fairness should not be primarily addressed by climate finance but should be mainly tackled by other means. Research limitations/implications As there is still ongoing, intense discussion about how the international transfer schemes addressed in Article 6 of the Paris Agreement should be designed, the research will help to sort some of the key arguments. Practical implications There are prominent international documents (like the Paris Agreement and the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development) seeking to address different goals simultaneously. While synergies between policies is desirable, there are major challenges for policy coordination. Addressing several different goals using fewer policy instruments, for example, will not succeed as the Tinbergen Rule points out. Social implications The integration of co-benefits in the analysis allows for taking into account the social effects of climate policy. As the authors argue, climate finance approaches could become overstrained if policymakers would consider them as tools to also solve local sustainability problems. Originality/value In this paper, the authors will not only examine what can be learnt from the clean development mechanism (CDM) for future schemes under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement but also observe the experiences gained from a non-CDM scheme. So the authors pay attention to the Trust Fund of the Global Environment Facility (GEF) which was established with global benefit orientation, i.e. – unlike the CDM – it was not regarded as an additional goal to support local sustainable development. Yet, despite its disregard of local co-benefits, the authors think that it is of particular importance to include the GEF in the analysis, as some important lessons can be learnt from it.

show abstract

Section: Cooperative Approaches In Accordance With Article 6 Of the Paris Agreementmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…5. On this and other standards like the Climate, Community & Biodiversity Standard and the Social Carbon Standard see, e.g. Michaelowa et al (2019a, 2019b, 2019c) and Michaelowa et al (2020a).…”

Section: Notesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Overstraining international climate finance: when conflicts of objectives threaten its success

Buchholz

Rübbelke

2021

IJCCSM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Other existing or emerging market mechanisms for mitigation of GHG include national/bilateral and (sub)national crediting schemes mechanisms [72]. Since the adoption of the Paris Agreement (PA) [2] and Paris Rulebook for Article 6 implementation at COP26 [73], global efforts to operationalize and utilize PA Article 6 market mechanisms have stepped up.…”

Section: Compliance Market and Carbon Creditsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Regenerative Development Model: A Life Cycle-Based Methodology for the Definition of Regenerative Contribution Units (RCUs)

Del Borghi,

Gallo,

Gagliano

et al. 2024

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the “contributive” approach, balancing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions cannot be considered comprehensive, as all footprints, such as ecological and water, shall be assessed and balanced by regenerative actions contributing not only to carbon removal, but also to the regeneration of biodiversity, land, and water. A survey on existing methodologies for the assessment of the damage (environmental burden) and the calculation of the environmental repair (offsets) has been presented in this work. Its outcome pointed out a lack of scientific knowledge on how to put metrics beyond the regenerative development model and in particular on how life cycle assessment (LCA) can scientifically support a number of key features essential to develop a new methodology. The proposed approach is based on three pillars: reduce, remove, and repair. Indeed, this paper aims to develop a methodological LCA-based approach for the definition of Regenerative Contribution Units (RCUs) to quantitatively assess the contribution of projects in line with Sustainable Developments Goals (SDGs) and the framework of regenerative model development. These regenerative units might be marketed locally and globally by enterprises interested in purchasing such assets to scientifically and ethically comply with their corporate ESG obligations. Furthermore, the novelty and feasibility of the proposed approach has been preliminarily investigated through an example of footprints balancing.

show abstract

“…Biodiversity monitoring can be performed in 5‐ to 10‐year intervals, which is a typical time frame in carbon crediting businesses (Michaelowa et al, 2019). Biodiversity and carbon crediting mechanisms should secure longevity, that is, the potential to prolong contracts for decades or centuries—instead of the mere 30 years currently used under most carbon crediting schemes.…”

Section: The Co‐crediting Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the process of land evaluation, we propose that representative plots are randomly surveyed by accredited institutions using standardised procedures that are verified independently (Michaelowa et al, 2019). The representative plots for monitoring should be of sufficient size and number and located randomly in the survey area, avoiding edge effects.…”

Section: The Co-crediting Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards a co‐crediting system for carbon and biodiversity

Tedersoo

Sepping

Morgunov

et al. 2023

Plants People Planet

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Societal Impact StatementHumankind is facing both climate and biodiversity crises. This article proposes the foundations of a scheme that offers tradable credits for combined aboveground and soil carbon and biodiversity. Multidiversity—as estimated based on high‐throughput molecular identification of soil meiofauna, fungi, bacteria, protists, plants and other organisms shedding DNA into soil, complemented by acoustic and video analyses of aboveground macrobiota—offers a cost‐effective method that captures much of the terrestrial biodiversity. Such a voluntary crediting system would increase the quality of carbon projects and contribute funding for delivering the Kunming‐Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.SummaryCarbon crediting and land offsets for biodiversity protection have been developed to tackle the challenges of increasing greenhouse gas emissions and the loss of global biodiversity. Unfortunately, these two mechanisms are not optimal when considered separately. Focusing solely on carbon capture—the primary goal of most carbon‐focused crediting and offsetting commitments—often results in the establishment of non‐native, fast‐growing monocultures that negatively affect biodiversity and soil‐related ecosystem services. Soil contributes a vast proportion of global biodiversity and contains traces of aboveground organisms. Here, we outline a carbon and biodiversity co‐crediting scheme based on the multi‐kingdom molecular and carbon analyses of soil samples, along with remote sensing estimation of aboveground carbon as well as video and acoustic analyses‐based monitoring of aboveground macroorganisms. Combined, such a co‐crediting scheme could help halt biodiversity loss by incentivising industry and governments to account for biodiversity in carbon sequestration projects more rigorously, explicitly and equitably than they currently do. In most cases, this would help prioritise protection before restoration and help promote more socially and environmentally sustainable land stewardship towards a ‘nature positive’ future.

show abstract

Co-benefits Under the Market Mechanisms of the Paris Agreement

Cited by 11 publications

References 41 publications

Overstraining international climate finance: when conflicts of objectives threaten its success

Overstraining international climate finance: when conflicts of objectives threaten its success

Regenerative Development Model: A Life Cycle-Based Methodology for the Definition of Regenerative Contribution Units (RCUs)

Towards a co‐crediting system for carbon and biodiversity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About