Voluntary carbon markets (VCMs), created in 2000, are carbon credit trading mechanisms that allow companies, in particular, to voluntarily offset their carbon footprint. They can be traced back to the Kyoto Protocol, which introduced the principle of trading greenhouse gas emission reduction credits (or ‘CO2 equivalents’) in 1997. However, they are distinct from ‘carbon allowances’, which are part of a compliance scheme rather than a voluntary one. 

These voluntary markets have grown significantly in recent years. One of the driving forces behind this development has been the implementation of initiatives to achieve ‘Net-Zero’ targets – the vast majority of which are voluntary, although some compliance mechanisms allow the use of carbon credits (e.g. the Corsia mechanism in the aviation sector). All this should contribute to the development of an ecosystem for trading the regulatory environmental service of carbon capture, in support of the objective of reducing consumption of the ‘global carbon budget’, itself set by the IPCC.

However, voluntary carbon markets have been the subject of criticism and controversy since their inception, and questions remain as to whether they will actually help to achieve the objectives of the Paris Agreements. 

Based on an analysis of the existing situation and the conceptual framework that currently structures the voluntary carbon markets and carbon credits, the study identifies the pitfalls not only of these markets and their organisation, but also of the instruments traded and the underlying paradigms that validate the current structuring of these markets. 

The aim is to put forward proposals to ensure that the realities of the climate and the available carbon budget are better integrated into the operation of voluntary carbon markets, so that they become genuine tools for helping companies to make the climate transition. For example, it answers fundamental questions such as: should I offset, what part and what volume of my emissions are legitimate for offsetting, should I contribute to maintaining climate regulation services without offsetting?  

Using an accounting and management approach, the study questions current approaches to voluntary carbon markets, centred on the neoclassical economic paradigm. It promotes a ‘climate debt’ approach, as well as the management of this ‘climate debt’ through carbon budgets to be managed by means of preservation activities whose primary function must be to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. 

Using an ecological accounting method, the study describes how companies should contribute to global climate debt reduction beyond the voluntary carbon markets, and, through their organisational processes, addresses the levels of accountability for the various emission sources (scopes 1, 2, 3).

The study shows that carbon credits and voluntary carbon markets are disconnected from climate and organisational realities. Opening the ‘black box’ of VCMs shows that behind this name lie several conceptions of these instruments, and therefore several ways of using and accounting for them within companies. What's more, the tools used by companies are not linked to the objectives of national or international climate policies, so they cannot be used to steer progress towards a global low-carbon trajectory. 

To reconnect these instruments with climate policies, these markets need to be thought outside the neoclassical conceptual framework that gave rise to the other carbon management tools. The study proposes principles for reorganising these markets around a ‘managerial’ approach (using in particular the C.A.R.E. ecological accounting and management framework). It makes it possible to design VCMs to ensure compliance with carbon budgets allocated between companies, based on the global carbon budget defined by the IPCC. It thus gives theoretical and operational meaning to the ‘avoid/reduce/compensate’ sequence and to the use of compensation for ‘residual emissions’. 

In other words, in order to collectively stay below 1.5°C of global warming, companies would each have to respect a given carbon budget each year (the carbon credit not being a licence to pollute or an emission right, but rather an instrument to be included in a strategy to limit greenhouse gas emissions). This would make it possible to support businesses while reconnecting the tool (VCMs), businesses and climate policies, from the perspective of global governance of the climate system.

Find out more: 

• Download the research paper (in French): Crédits carbone et marché carbone volontaire : analyse critique au regard des politiques climatiques et des sciences de gestion, et proposition d'un cadrage comptable écologique des crédits carbone
• Watch the research webinar (in French): Pertinence des marchés volontaires de carbone : aujourd'hui et dans un futur neutre en carbone

Contact: 

• Djedjiga Kachenoura, Research Officer on Climate Finance, AFD

Many of the measures on quantifying progress by countries towards reducing income inequality have focused on indices that measure trends in inequality over time (Gini coefficient for example) and compare countries without considering the differences between their socioeconomic structures.

However, these indices do not paint the complete picture about how countries are performing, especially when compared to one other in achieving Sustainable Development Goals and what policies and investments may be needed to support them. This research project will provide an alternative measurement of income inequality by taking into account the developing countries’ structural or predetermined conditions (mineral assets, type of institutions etc.) in assessing their progress towards reducing inequality and the impacts of climate change. 

This project is part of the call for research proposals “Advancing the inequality agenda through collaborative research: identifying the priorities for a global Team Europe approach on inequalities”, launched by the Strategic Committee of the Research Facility on Inequalities. It is coordinated by AFD and co-financed by the European Commission, AECID and ENABEL. 

The project focuses on the following objectives: 

• Firstly, it will compare each country with its potential to reduce income inequalities by measuring the scope for improvement for each country at every year. This will allow a better understanding of the key factors that hinder a country’s effort and performance in reducing inequalities and of the policy and investments that are needed to tackle inequalities more efficiently.
• Secondly, it will investigate how climate – temperature, precipitation and extreme weather events– influence the efficiency of countries in combining inputs to reduce inequality.
• Thirdly, it will look at adaptation or intensification effects across regions, particularly in LDCs and SIDS and will identify the needed scale of investments.

Building on a panel database on 145 countries, including countries from Least Developed Countries (LDCs) and Small Island Developing States (SIDS) from 2000-2020, the project will use a stochastic frontier approach, an economic modelling technique, to estimate feasible frontiers for income inequality for each country and year.

You will find below the different research papers related to this project :

In progress

Contact: 

• Anda David, Research Officer, AFD