Richard Muscat

#Article6 / #CORSIA buy side insights and tips shared in the Sylvera and Climate Action Center of Excellence (CACE) webinar yesterday. 1. Key aspects when considering an Article 6 investment.   Start with the NDC - how clearly defined are the NDC targets? Are the targets conditional or unconditional. Is there a clear sectoral breakdown? Is the country serious about meeting its target and has it had sufficient climate finance?   At a minimum you need to check that your project type isn’t sat in an unconditional NDC, ideally it’s in the conditional NDC and on a whitelist.    Look for an Article 6 Framework, is there a clear understanding of the costs of a Corresponding Adjustment? Who has legal authority to issue a CA? Is there alignment between the framework, regulations, and the NDC? Did the country submit it's last Biannual Transparency Report on time, and does it have the capacity to meet future reporting obligations? Smart investors are in country capacity building as well as investing at a project level. If the project does have an LOA, look for or ask when the Initial Report is being published. The UNFCCC Technical Expert Review team will then identify and publish any inconsistencies on the Centralised Accounting and Reporting Platform (CARP). What do those inconsistencies mean to corporate buyers?    If I was investing, I would look for projects that are CORSIA eligible, that can deliver real reductions or removals within the current NDC cycle, and whose economics will continue to stack up in the absence of a CA beyond 2030.  2. Role for collaboration. The A6 market is in reality, many markets with a CA in common. Most A6 credits only have one use case that needs to be designed for upfront, this fragments the market. Due to different buyer criteria, A6 credits tend to work for only one country or CORSIA, they can't deliver into both. This creates a real headache for project developers and countries. They effectively need to pick a winning horse before it’s born.   To scale, we need a greater fungibility of A6 credits. This requires buyers -countries, corporates or schemes - to align in their criteria.    Country stakeholders could also form consortiums to share the cost of capacity building - and by that I don’t mean workshops, but support with reporting and compliance.  Some countries cant even afford to turn up to the negotiating table at Bonn/COP, so we need to make sure funding isn’t just for projects, but for the host countries to meet all the requirements to issue a robust CA and to deliver conditional NDCs. In an ideal world, if the promised conditional financing doesn’t materialise, a change in the rules to allow market mechanisms to fill the funding gap should be considered. For those that missed the webinar: https://lnkd.in/eAj2p5HV Francisco Rentería Alexandra Soezer Lisa Hendrickson Carbon Pulse Ing. Glenn Kwabena Gyimah (PhD) Carmen Álvarez Campo 🌿 Supanut Chotevitayatarakorn emsurge

107

13 Kommentare

5 years from now, the biggest difference between carbon credit registries will likely not be their methodologies. It will be how they 𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲 methodologies. Here’s what I mean: In 2025, we’re still seeing a few key differences from one methodology to another. But if registries 1) have access to the same research and 2) have to adapt to the same regulations, it’s very possible standards will start to look more and more similar. So what differentiates registries? From my perspective, it’s all about how registries enable tangible, real-world climate impact. And as methodologies standardize, these 𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 questions will become much more significant: • What’s the registry’s tech stack? How transparent is it making the carbon credit for the buyer? • What’s the registry’s buyer and seller network? How well do they actually help get climate projects funded? • How much support does the registry offer to project developers? How quickly and frequently do they enable credit verification and issuance? And so on. I’m very proud of the methodologies our Science Team has developed with our technical working groups, and I’m very grateful for the many experts and developers who’ve provided input through the standard development process. But alongside this focus on rigorous science, we're focused on: • continuing to build a platform that results in efficient, transparent issuance of carbon credits • matching buyers with credits that align with their business strategies and climate commitments “Quality” carbon credits is table stakes. Excellent operations and tech that meets market needs is how these carbon credits will become tools for catalytic climate action.

97

7 Kommentare

Building Global Cooperation for #AI & #Climate Action: What are the ingredients to scale a climate solution? To me, it's clear that strong partnerships is the most important ingredient. In our recent #collaboration, we asked: how can local farmers in Colombia, indigenous communities in s, and researchers in Europe work together through shared data, AI, and regenerative practices? Key steps we identified: 🗣️ Deploy #modular, culturally appropriate tools (multi-language, including #indigenous languages, adaptable across regions). 🛣️ Create a structured roadmap with clear priorities — start small (pilot reforestation, water management, CO₂ monitoring) and grow step by step. 🔬 Connect with universities and local experts for on-the-ground data (soil, water, biodiversity). 💸 Design financial pathways: from #carbon credit markets to international cooperation funds. 🤲 What inspires me most is the spirit of #mission over ego. By combining tech, science, indigenous knowledge, and innovative funding, we can lay the foundation for scalable, nature-positive change. 💡 The future of climate action lies in collaboration, not silos. #AIforClimate #Sustainability #Collaboration #ClimateAction #Partnerships

42

15 Kommentare

💪 A stronger voice for extended producer responsibility in Europe? It’s finally happening! On Monday we held the launch event for the PRO Circularity Alliance - the first European network that unites Producer Responsibility Organisations (PROs) across sectors. Why is this big news? Because until now, PROs have mostly worked in silos: packaging here, batteries there, textiles and e-waste somewhere else. Each with different systems, different voices, different battles in Brussels. But EU legislation is expanding fast. Complexity is growing. Expectations are rising. And without coordination, EPR risks becoming fragmented, inconsistent - and less effective as a tool to drive the circular economy. That’s why this Alliance matters. ✅ A platform to share expertise across sectors and Member States ✅ A stronger, united representation in Brussels ✅ A chance to make EPR systems more consistent, effective, and future-proof At the launch event, we welcomed the first 10 Members across 4 countries and set out priorities for the way forward. The energy in the room was clear: PROs see the urgency - but also the opportunity. And the interest hasn’t stopped. We’ve already had so much demand that we’ll host an extra info day in Brussels this November for more PROs wanting to join. For me, this is more than just another association, it’s a clear sign that PROs are ready to step up and shape the future of circularity together. 👉 If your organisation is a PRO and wants to be part of this, reach out. The time for a stronger, coordinated EPR voice in Europe is now!

30

2 Kommentare