Summary

AI-generated

This summary is written by a language model reading the source document. It is not the publisher's words and is not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment

The document examines the negotiations surrounding the Framework for Various Approaches (FVA) ahead of COP-19, highlighting the tension between parties seeking minimal guidance and those calling for centralized oversight. It argues that for carbon markets to support a new climate deal, they must be predicated on ambitious mitigation targets, strict environmental integrity, and the prevention of double counting. The author specifically warns that a proposed FVA pilot phase, advocated by Poland, could set a dangerous precedent by allowing early action units to be recognized in a post-2020 regime before fundamental accounting rules are established.

Key insights

AI-generated

These insights are written by a language model reading the source document. They are not the publisher's words and are not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment
  • There is a lack of consensus among Parties regarding the role and scope of the FVA; New Zealand advocates for minimal international guidance and maximum flexibility, while NGOs and the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) seek comprehensive centralized international oversight.
  • Carbon markets require an ambitious climate regime to function effectively, as insufficient mitigation ambition leads to low demand and prices for market units, which in turn reduces the quality of those units and the stringency of baselines.
  • To ensure a net atmospheric benefit, the FVA must address double counting—such as 'double claiming' where both host and buyer countries count the same reduction—and ensure that reductions go beyond mitigation targets rather than just helping host countries meet them.
  • The proposal by Poland to establish an FVA pilot phase is viewed as a risk to the integrity of a future climate deal because recognizing units from a pilot phase before post-2020 accounting rules are finalized would make it difficult to retroactively tighten rules or exclude low-quality units.

Cite the original document

APA
CMW (2013). Will carbon markets help or hinder a new climate deal? Carbon Market Watch. https://carbonmarketwatch.org/2013/09/30/will-carbon-markets-help-or-hinder-a-new-climate-deal-2/
Chicago
CMW. Will carbon markets help or hinder a new climate deal? Carbon Market Watch, 2013. https://carbonmarketwatch.org/2013/09/30/will-carbon-markets-help-or-hinder-a-new-climate-deal-2/.
Wikipedia
{{cite report |last1=CMW |title=Will carbon markets help or hinder a new climate deal? |publisher=Carbon Market Watch |date=30 September 2013 |url=https://carbonmarketwatch.org/2013/09/30/will-carbon-markets-help-or-hinder-a-new-climate-deal-2/ |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}
BibTeX
@techreport{cmw2013will, author = {CMW}, title = {{Will carbon markets help or hinder a new climate deal?}}, institution = {Carbon Market Watch}, year = {2013}, month = sep, url = {https://carbonmarketwatch.org/2013/09/30/will-carbon-markets-help-or-hinder-a-new-climate-deal-2/}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }

Full text

Collected · Record updated