The Paris Agreement will greatly benefit from the past experience with international market mechanisms for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reductions and related regulatory systems, which have gone through four periods with specific challenges. The first period 1997–2004 operationalized the mechanisms defined in the Kyoto Protocol, the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and Joint Implementation (JI). Pilot activities in different sectors were undertaken by the public sector, and the first baseline and monitoring methodologies officially approved. Between 2005 and 2011, the carbon markets expanded massively. The EU emission trading scheme (EU ETS) was linked to the Kyoto mechanisms, creating demand for carbon credits from the private sector. During this “gold rush” period criticism emerged with regarding the uneven geographical distribution of projects, as well as environmental integrity problems related to baselines and additionality. The next period saw a collapse in carbon prices between 2012 and 2014, limiting the development of new projects. The quantitative limits on the use of offsets in the EU ETS were reached and the failure to agree on a new international regime resulted in a drying up of demand from governments. The 2015–2018 period is characterized by a gradual stabilization of the international climate regime. The Paris Agreement adopted in 2015 increases complexity through global participation in mitigation. Future carbon markets will therefore face both old challenges—supply–demand balance, environmental integrity, transaction costs—and new ones—interactions with other policies and national targets, and sectoral/policy baselines and additionality checks preventing hot air proliferation. This article is categorized under: The Carbon Economy and Climate Mitigation > Policies, Instruments, Lifestyles, Behavior

This policy analysis examines the role of the World Bank in shaping and stimulating international carbon markets. Adopting a public choice perspective, we argue that its engagement can be understood as a response to the joint goal of reputational and financial benefits. The detailed empirical account of the Bank's activities -from its pioneering role through the Prototype Carbon Fund in the early 2000s, to its initiatives for upscaled crediting subsequent to the 2015 Paris Agreement -is broadly in line with this interpretation. The period between 2005 and 2011 most clearly shows that the Bank was ready to forego some reputational benefits for the sake of financial benefits. During this period, it followed a flourishing privately driven carbon market, mostly competing with, rather than catalysing, private activities. After the Paris Agreement opened the door for a new phase of carbon markets, the Bank again took up a pioneering role, now focusing on the public sector. However, since transparency in relation to its activities is limited -thus reducing reputational risk -these activities may not meet the quality standards, notably with respect to additionality, that are a precondition for carbon markets to be an effective tool for climate change mitigation.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract