COP26炭素市場報告会 ファイヤーサイドパネル

‍

[以下のトランスクリプトは、簡潔に、明瞭に、読みやすくするために軽く編集されています。正確な引用はビデオをご覧ください。］

パネルディスカッション記録

ベン・ラッテンベリー

COP26はどのようなものでしたか？

サム・ギル

COPは私にとっては少しぼんやりとしたものでした。非常に忙しい時期でしたが、1年半、つまりほぼ2年間、バーチャルで一緒に仕事をしてきた人たちと実際に会うことができて本当によかったです。COVIDのおかげで、実は直接会うことができなかったのです。COPで本当に良かったことのひとつは、このスペースで働く素晴らしい情熱的な人たちに実際に会って、協力したり話し合ったりできたことです。また、今回のCOPで目立ったことのひとつは、民間セクターの代表がいかに多かったかということです。多くの人は、このことを否定的に報道していますが、実際には、民間セクター、つまり市場が活気づき始めているということです。彼らは行動を起こし始め、この問題を真剣に受け止めています。これは本当にエキサイティングなことです。振り返ってみると、多くの人が『このCOPは必要な成果を出せなかった』と言います。しかし、私たちはもっと迅速に行動する必要があると認識していますし、市場にはその能力があります。ですから、私にとっては、現実に人々に会い、協力し、アイデアを共有し、交流できたことは素晴らしいことでした。

ステファニー・ズー

特に、COPでこのパネルの3人に初めて会いました。私たち、デルタにとっても私自身にとっても、COPは初めての経験でした。とても圧倒されましたが、いわば2つの異なるイベントのようで興味深かったです。ひとつは、第6条や古典的な合意をめぐる実際の交渉で、もうひとつは、サムが言ったように、民間部門がそれぞれ別のイベントを開催し、どうすれば本当に規模を拡大し、迅速に物事を進め、従来のCOP交渉で起きていることと一致させることができるかについて、互いに話し合っていました。とても興味深いものでした。毎日、第6条で何が起こっているのかを把握するのは大変でしたし、その場にいた人たち全員とミーティングをするのも大変でした。サムの言うように、私たちは、炭素市場や航空セクターの多くの人々と、ほぼ2年間会っていませんでした。ですから、多くのことが起こったと感じていますし、素晴らしい経験だったと思います。

ナタリー・フローレス

まあ、私にとってはちょっと違うんですけどね。[以前は、あるレベルでは非常に専門的な仕事をしていました。今は気候変動ディレクターという肩書きです。私にとって挑戦的なのは、これが私の慣例だということです。環境省では、クジラからリオプラス20のような持続可能性全般まで、さまざまなテーマについて約30のCOPを開催しています。また、認証条約やその他の国連条約にも取り組まなければなりません。[私はこの担当でした。私はまず、環境省の代表団全体の調整をしなければなりません。どうやら大統領はワールド・リーダーズ・サミットに来られなかったようです。ですから、環境大臣がその代わりをしなければなりません。そして彼のリーダーシップの下、ドミニカ共和国の優先事項を考慮しながら、交渉のテーブルに着かなければなりません。なぜ今回は違ったのですか？新政権だからです。新しい政権だからです。就任して1年です。ですから、この新政権がCOPに臨むのは初めてのことでした。そのため、外務省や開発、エネルギー、その他のセクターに関係する国の他の省庁、そしてもちろん民間セクターの関心と協力しながら、すべてのプロセスを進めることは、同時にチャレンジングなことでした。COVIDの関係で、私たちはCOP議長から少人数の代表団を編成するよう要請されましたが、COVIDバブルの必要性から、交渉の場に臨む際にはそれを守るよう努めました。ドミニカ共和国としては、全体として成果を上げることができたと思います。私たちの主な目標は、地理的につながりが深いドミニカ共和国を、新興の気候変動リーダーとして位置づけることでした。社会的企業責任から転換し、投資を開始する必要があります。それが私たちの主な目標です。そしてもちろん、小さな発展途上国への資金援助です。私たちは、ドミニカ共和国の一員として、さまざまな交渉グループの中で発言し、声を上げることで、この国がさらに前進できるよう位置づけようとしています。これが、COPの第一印象です。

レネ・ベラスケス

ありがとう、ベン。インフルエンザにかかったので、COPには参加しませんでした。だから家にいました。しかし、私は事実上その場にいなかったので、異なる視点を持っています。ソーシャルメディア・チャンネルや、そこにいた多くの人々、私の同業者たちとの対話と会話を通して、私は、サムやステフ、ナタリーが今述べたような、政策領域だけでなく民間部門でも見られるこのような活動の波に、信じられないほど意欲的に取り組んでいるのを見ました。私にとっては、結果は完璧ではありませんでしたが、とても素晴らしいものでした。条ルールブックが最終決定され、パリメカニズムや対応調整、ITMOなどに関する理解も深まりました。[合意に達しました）。私たちは皆、そのような政策的なシグナルを強く望んでいました。私にとっては、伝統的な経済学101（の原則）を思い起こさせるものでした。優れた政策や政策の追い風があれば、市場は競争上の優位性やイノベーションを活用することができます。基本的には、市場の力を活用することができるということです。私がCOPに向けて見たことのひとつは、CBLのような自主的なプラットフォームでの価格や出来高の動きからわかるように、市場におけるこのようなポジティブな考え方や感覚でした。COPの2～3週間前、私たちはCOPに向けた非常に強気なセンチメントを目にしました。今、政策立案者、金融市場、投資、企業のコミットメントなど、すべての仕組みがうまく機能しているのは本当に興味深いことです。以前のCOPでは、例えばコペンハーゲンのCOPを思い出しますが、パリは楽観的な見方が多かったので違っていたのかもしれません。

ベン・ラッテンベリー

これから数分間、COPがそれぞれの分野で何を意味するのかについて考えてみたいと思います。レネ、第6条の結果が市場にとってどのような意味を持つと思うか、もう少し詳しく話してもらえるとうれしいです。

レネ・ベラスケス

Yeah, it's a great question. I think to be very upfront, I think the market is still trying to digest the kind of policy impacts for voluntary carbon, in particular issues around corresponding adjustments. There seems to be, effectively, still some discussions around what are the meanings of certain language [terms used] within the actual, published texts at the COP. We were advised by the chief negotiator at the UNFCCC on a recent IETA call, the lady's name is Amy Steen, not to dig too deep into the underlying meaning of every single word, because effectively, [because] of the nature of the negotiations, some of those were replaced multiple times and, ultimately, finalised. [...] Many many actors are still trying to digest what are the impacts for voluntary carbon offsets as it relates to things like corresponding adjustments. What seems to be the conclusion, and the understanding of most, is that corresponding adjustments, so the accounting nomenclature around moving and allocating the emission reductions and the benefits to to a country's ledger, certainly apply in the case of the article 6.2 and 6.4 for the ITMOs, and then the Paris mechanism instruments, essentially, like, the next generation of CDM, and for compliance systems like CORSIA. But the question mark is the question around 'other' in that definition, in the Article 6 language. And many proponents in the voluntary market, see that there really is no need for that corresponding adjustment for substantiating purely voluntary claims, because essentially you're not moving the units from one country to another country where the corporate is domiciled. So I think that there'll be some time to digest this. I think that the standards certainly [...], in the private context, like the VCS and Gold Standard, will continue to put out guidance around how they interpret it. But essentially, you'll have two tracks: one for voluntary offsets with corresponding adjustments, and those without them, and we'll see where the market really tends to go. What does the adoption look like from a corporate making commitments? I suspect some corporates will want and need corresponding adjustments for a certain subset of offsets. So, for example, and I'd love to get Stephanie's view on this, is, obviously, it seems that for CORSIA-eligible offsets, there will be a requirement for those corresponding adjustments. So that will create, essentially, a smaller pool of liquidity that, I think, will have an effect on pricing, but that's certainly known. 'Will voluntary buyers be looking for corresponding adjustments for purely voluntary offsets?' If the answer is, 'yes', then I think that will gravitate and take the market down that direction. I suspect that it's, 'no', and I suspect that voluntary buyers will essentially look to finance projects through the process of acquiring those offsets in areas where they can make significant impacts. I think it'll be the countries that choose not to require corresponding adjustments for those volunteer activities in their countries that will be really successful in attracting that private financing to come in and spur those emission reductions at scale, whereas, maybe some others don't. So, you'll see this divergence, and that will be really interesting to see. But the overall thematic trend, that we see in the market is that the demand is not going away, that the demand is consistent, and it's effectively buoyed by the tailwinds of policy direction, increasing investor and shareholder pressures, societal pressures and that decarbonisation is a long-term megatrend, and it's now going to be the biggest transformation in terms of, geopolitics and economics ever, it's greater than the industrial revolution. So that horse has bolted, and I think that is the key direction to drive now. The question is: 'Can supply keep up with the demand?' And will yet to be seen. Ultimately, I see, in summary, Article 6[‘s] corresponding adjustments, maybe being bottlenecks in some [or...] certain parts, in terms of the supply constraints, and that may have disproportionate effects in terms of pricing. That will be an interesting thing to watch.

ベン・ラッテンベリー

There's definitely been talk about a split in the market of the VCM: on the one hand, carbon credits with corresponding adjustments, and on the other, credits without, and you mentioned CORSIA requiring corresponding adjustments, even though no one quite knows how this will work in practice yet, because the accounting mechanisms haven't yet been created.  Stephanie, Rene referencing CORSIA and tailwinds, so along those lines, can you say a bit about what you think the Article 6 outcome means for you, and your role, and how this might impact your strategy going forward.

ステファニー・ズー

Yeah, definitely, so, I think I agree with everything that Rene talked about. For us [...] we have a goal that is carbon neutrality from March 2020 going forward. We have been purchasing offsets. We work through a lot of different partners [...]. Ultimately, investing in the carbon market and buying carbon offsets in the short term is because we need to make an impact on climate now. We're not, stopping all the other things, to your point on tailwinds or reducing fuel, that all needs to come to decarbonise aviation, but for right now, we need to look at things like how to end deforestation or stop deforestation by 2030, and the lever that we can use currently is carbon offsets. We buy a lot of this, and there is going to be a part of our portfolio that obviously [...] needs to be eligible in order to meet our CORSIA obligation over the next 15 years, and then, there's another part of it that, I guess, really falls under the voluntary portion, in order for us to meet carbon neutrality. I think where Article 6 comes in, we'll really be understanding, '[..] is there going to be a need for corresponding adjustments? And, do we, ultimately, [...] do corresponding adjustments for just CORSIA-eligible, and then not for the rest of the portfolio?' And, I think, this is really great, as we're thinking about what we're going to be doing for the next three to five years. Understanding what those impacts are, and then just thinking about how that's going to ultimately impact where we invest our money to really scale preventing deforestation [and] where these funds really need to go to make [the] ultimate impact in the short term. I think one other thing that I will touch on [...] We've been in this space a relatively long time, I think, purchasing much smaller scales before, but, I think, really, for corporate buyers, that are going to be coming into the space, to meet their net zero targets or carbon neutrality targets, or to be able to be on this journey along carbon, I think it's really important to have transparency, and for these people within companies, like myself, that may not be carbon traders day-to-day, to help understand all the nuances around Article 6, know what has to be done if you're going on one track, if you are doing CORSIA-eligible, and you're an airline, what has to happen. So, I think, we kind of talked about this a little bit at COP, also, we're not all carbon traders, and there's a lot of nuance of this, so, I think, just transparency builds visibility, and understanding, kind of, what has to happen in order for us to be able to finance these projects will be, I think, really critical in the next couple months and year.

ベン・ラッテンベリー

ナタリー、あなたは明らかに交渉の中心にいましたね。COP26の結果が政策コミュニティの中でどのように受け止められているか、少しお聞かせください。

ナタリー・フローレス

Okay, so we have a lot of, let's say, counter views because all of our countries have different interests. We put so much effort in[to] bringing Article 6 [to COP], and out of this COP, this is what we wanted. Though, of course, and I don't wanna sound, not politically correct, but the usual players played their cards. We were fighting until the end, especially to avoid double accounting. I know the private sector and entities like those represented here like Xpansiv CBL, like Sylvera, Delta, which is also a company, right, have been putting so much effort together to actually make the balance needed to stick to 1.5 and, of course, make the balance we need to avoidable accounting, but we were very afraid that we were actually getting into, a road of a possible double accounting. Most of the negotiations group that the Dominican Republic is part of, and other negotiations groups that we are not even part of, were [as] worried as we were. Especially because forestry issues are a priority for us, we were having this conversation: ‘If you are allowing CDM credits into the Paris rule book, you should allow also, the work that small developing states have been doing in protecting their forest to try to make this balance, because forestry it's supposed to be, the 'cheapest way' to fight climate change, right?’ So, we were making this little fight, which was a priority for us, [it] was important, but it was not, [a] push back [on] the agreement itself. It was even more deep in the way [in] which [...] the agreement was put forward. So as I mentioned before, for us, I have to say this on behalf of my country, we were a bit disappointed because we have [spent] about, I don't know, 12, 13 years trying to put together readiness, preparation and [more] preparation to [gain] access to this benefit of [a] results payments, and then being able to do some program, like the program that perhaps Delta does, and we haven't been able to do that. You know what I mean? So right now, in our view, in that specific part, just to give you an example, how our conversations in the negotiations were, and, of course, this is diplomacy, this is very political. When leaders sit together, we, at technical level, we advise them. But at the end, if you want an agreement, if you want a result, and, at least, set a basis, we have to let go [of] some of our, not priorities, but fight our priorities later. In our case, also, finance was an important issue, finance, in general. That's why we were in the negotiations group we are part of because this is a consensus convention. So we had to try to make our voice [heard] through the negotiations group that we are part of. So we were very keen on finance for adaptation. So we were, like, ‘if you were going to finance through the Green Climate Fund, for example, mitigation actions, and you are going to fund electric vehicles, you are going to fund wind farms, and everything, what would we do with the investment that countries like mine need to do on adaptation?’ So we wanted to link, we wanted to make the link between Article 6 and funding for adaptation as well. And at some point we were very, positive on the outcome of that, but later we were a little let down, and, at the end, we […] accepted the text as as it was, in order, to reach consensus between countries. But we haven't give up on our priorities, and we are very looking forward to keep improving tax and these rules as part of the negotiations process. But I think it's very important, the role that players, like all of you here, do, in this, because having the interest of our private sector, though, Delta is not private sector of the Dominican Republic, but has more than nine flights a day between the Dominican Republic, between, for example, Santo Domingo and Europe. So I can say Delta has, sort of, [an] interest in our country, because [...] of the Dominicans flying Delta to New York, just to give an example. So having these players there, and telling us: 'Look this is priority for me. This is what your country needs to head because this is the way I can help you reach your 20% reduction that you want to do through your NDC and transportation, through aviation. Is one of your mitigation actions typified in your NDC? I'm here and this is my priority.' So, I think that this was an interesting COP, because [...the] private sector was really engaged. [The] private sector was really following up with their government, but it was smooth. It's like: 'This is my research. This is what I've done. This is what I can do. So take this as advice.' So [...] that's what we were trying to do, play, all the cards in our priorities, and the priorities for our country. So, in general, we were a bit disappointed because, of course, the real priorities of our country on losses [and] damages as a small island state and adaptation were not [as] rich as we expected. We got some stuff for adaptation, but not like the fights that we did until the end. Like we were there, negotiating on your Sunday until the last call. So yeah, I think we can keep improving, and we will keep doing it, and we will push you to have the Dominican Republic in this precise moment to take that leap, that next step, that we need to take now that the Paris rule book is advanced and finished. 

ベン・ラッテンベリー

私たち全員を代表して申し上げますが、交渉におけるご尽力に感謝いたします。グラスゴーにいらっしゃった期間、夜遅くまで大変なご苦労があったことと思います。もちろん、完璧な合意だとは誰も思っていません。そして、あなたがおっしゃったように、これは大きなマイルストーンであり、COP27やその先に向けて年々改善されていくことを期待しています。サムさん、第6条の結論がプロジェクトの質にとってどのような意味を持つとお考えですか？

サム・ギル

プロジェクトの品質について考えるとき、それが私たちの仕事であることは言うまでもありません。私たちはプロジェクトの質を体系的に評価していますが、私たちが見ているのは、新しいプロジェクトほど質が高いという一般的な傾向です。ですから、ボランタリーセクターやボランタリーカーボンマーケットでは、クレジットを生成するために使われる方法論に関して、非常に多くの技術革新が行われています。このような議論の背景を見ると、自主的な炭素市場では、クレジットの発行に国家が関与する傾向が強まっています。例えば、REDDプログラムでは、国レベルの会計を推し進め、そこにプロジェクトを入れ込むという傾向があります。ですから、対応する調整に関するシグナルは、この傾向をさらに推し進めることになると思います。このセクターにおいて、国レベルの関与がますます増えていくことは良いことだと思います。ですから、これは本当に前向きな結果だと思います。[...）6.4条メカニズムを見れば、そのメカニズムから生まれる方法論はCDMのものよりも強力なものになるでしょうし、CDMの時代から現在までの間にボランタリーセクターで行われてきたイノベーションを土台にしたものになると思います。グラスゴーは品質に関して非常に強いシグナルを送っており、品質は向上する一方であり、それが期待され、国家も民間セクターも品質に深く関心を寄せています。 

ベン・ラッテンベリー

というのも、グラスゴーでは先住民や地域コミュニティの権利について、これまでの多くの COP よりもずっと多くのことを耳にしたからです。ナタリーとサムに簡単にお聞きしたいのですが、自主的な炭素市場において、先住民や地域コミュニティへの注目が高まっていますが、このことは今後数カ月、数年のうちに影響を及ぼすとお考えですか？

ナタリー・フローレス

もちろん、私は政府の代表であり、これは私たちがやらなければならないことです。というのも、私は政府代表であり、私たちがやらなければならないのはこのようなことだからです。私たちが導入しているルールでは、これまでの制度的な取り決めを超えなければなりません。私の国のように、基本的に炭素市場の可能性に飛び込もうとしている国には、多くのチャンスがあると思います。これは、私たちの考え方を変えるための第一歩だと思います。私たちの民間部門は、もちろん過去のUNFCCCメカニズムや決定から得たクレジットを持っています。ですから、私たちは、国として、あるいは国のグループの一員として、全体的な結果に最も満足しているわけではありません。先ほど、私たちは小国としては非常に野心的なNDCを掲げていると申し上げました。私たちの排出量は世界全体の排出量の0.06％ですが、私たちはまだ発展途上にあり、私たちのNDCを達成するために必要な投資の7％を国費で賄うという約束をした今こそ、私たちの国で気候変動のための資金構造を構築する絶好の機会だと思います。つまり、5％は民間セクターから、2％は政府からということです。これは難しいことですが、大統領が率先して取り組むべきことです。彼は2050年に向けてカーボンニュートラルを推進することを表明していますが、これも非常に野心的なことで、それを達成する唯一の方法は、民間部門が現在の市場と関わりを持つことだと思います。 

サム・ギル

私たちの立場からすると、市場を見て一歩引いてみると、先住民のコミュニティが存在しないプロジェクトや、先住民のコミュニティが関与していないプロジェクトが大半を占めています。カーボンオフセットもありません。気候変動にプラスの影響もありません。ですから、先住民コミュニティの役割を抜きにして、この市場を論じるのはまったくの誤りなのです。ですから、私たちがプロジェクトの質を見るときには、常にそのプロジェクトが地域コミュニティとどのように関わり、地域コミュニティとどのように融合しているかを見ています。地元コミュニティにどのように支えられているのか？地域社会をどのようにサポートしているのか？プロジェクトがうまく設計されているかどうか、成功する見込みがあるかどうか、支援するプロジェクトが公正で優良なものであるかどうかを理解するためには、こうした種類の質問はすべて不可欠です。ですから、オフセットの質、あるいは支援しようとしているプロジェクトを見るとき、そのプロジェクトにおける先住民コミュニティの役割は、重要な検討事項ではありませんが、常に重要な検討事項です。しかし、気候への影響や、プロジェクトの気候変動に対する完全性、プロジェクトの成功の可能性とは別に、プロジェクトが提供するコベネフィットに注目することは、多くのクライアントにとって本当に重要です。ですから、COPはその重要性を見事に強調したと思います。しかし、COPで先住民コミュニティの役割が強調されたことは、このプロセスにとって素晴らしい成果だと思います。

ベン・ラッテンベリー

レネさんは先ほど、少なくとも短期的には需要増に対して供給がやや不足しているとおっしゃいましたが、これに対して市場がどのように反応し、今後数カ月の間に需給関係がどのように動くと予想されているのか、もう少し詳しくお聞かせください。

レネ・ベラスケス

Yes, certainly, and maybe even picking up from the thread just previously around quality. I think that they're interlinked. So when we look at the ultimate end buyers, let's say, the net zero corporates, to echo Sam's comments, I think it's absolutely imperative, and many of them are already doing this through their public commitments, for them to support high quality projects, because, ultimately, this is a voluntary action, and they're looking to engage with their key stakeholders, whether those be internal or external stakeholders. So, a key determining factor in them selecting the underlying units, the underlying offsets, from specific projects is very much linked to these additional, what traditionally references co-benefits, so the climate, the biodiversity and, importantly, the community benefits, that Sam just touched on, and so did Nat. In terms of the holistic picture at the NDC level, when we look at the project levels, these are really important determining factors, and the way that they are represented are really best reflected by pricing. So what we've seen is a couple of things that have really helped to shape the narrative. (And this will, kind of, lead into the supply piece, to answer your question.) [...] The first thing was [that] the market really [needed] to establish benchmarks, and we, as an exchange, have helped to facilitate that [by] working, obviously, with partners like S&P Platts, and other price reporting agencies, to help to address one of the key issues that Stephanie highlighted, the transparency issue around pricing, but also with regards to the supply component and the transactional volumes. Once the benchmarks, like, for example, the nature-based global emissions offset, or N-GEO, were established, one of the core tenants of those, of that contract, I should say, is to have an insistence on having those co-benefits certified, so via the CCB label, that then created the price signal, essentially, for those units. Everything that lacked that CCB, essentially, now [somebody] had an incentive to go ahead and get it, or sell at [it] a discount. And then what's happened since then is through the work of a Sylvera, and I really commend your team, is the dissemination of even further qualitative differentiation around those projects. And so now there are projects that have really strong ratings at the Sylvera level that actually now attract a premium above the market. So what that sets is an ambition for other project developers to really pursue that price premium. So one is just the fundamental mechanics, right? And then the other piece is that the floor in the market, the kind of the boogeyman in the industry that a lot of dissidents around the carbon markets have been harping on about for years. It is just no longer there. There's this, pervasive notion that there's always been, and will continue to be, this oversupply of super cheap credits. That's just not factually correct. There's been so much activity in the market, that all of that overhang has essentially been exhausted in the market, and the last wave essentially of that, and it's helped to, sort of, bring up the floor price, is the action of many crypto coins, and other kind of, crypto space, DeFi in particular, Klima Dao, Toucan Earth, etc., that have effectively acted as a black hole, or a sink, for all of these really, maybe not highest quality offsets, and effectively taking them off the board. So now what that creates is, and to answer your question around supply, an incentive for the financial markets, and the private sector actors to go ahead and implement new activities that reduce emissions at scale and can actually get the highest price premium. So there's this kind of lag that's occurring right now in terms of the investment, huge sums of money being raised and now deployed in the upstream side of things of project development. It'll take some time for those to actually be realised, and that will then spur further supply in the long run, right? We're talking like a 10-year, 30-year kind of horizon. In the short term, the supply right now is constrained, and it's just a factor of essentially a number of financial asset managers all rushing in at once and effectively taking positions. If you do a deeper dive, and you look at the analysis by Sylvera, which is fantastic, on the project issuance versus retirement of units, also I recommend looking at the Troves Research on this, there's a clear indication that there is sufficient supply out there. It's just sitting on the books of many of these, kind of, asset managers. I think that now that they've started to take positions, they'll now want to start rotating that portfolio, and be able to provide off-tank agreements to those corporates to be the natural, kind of, attrition of those offsets, and so there'll be this natural, kind of, pendulum swing back. I think that what we'll see, and this is a bit of a hypothesis, is that as we reach, sort of, December a lot of the traders that have been long will start taking some profit, and putting, and providing liquidity into the market, so we'll see that kind of supply squeeze be alleviated a little bit, and in the new year, we'll start seeing more and more supply hitting the market. I think [...] what we've seen now is this perfect, kind of, storm of increase in demand that, kind of, caught a lot of people off guard and then the supply constraints that are just a phenomenon of the pandemic, like getting a VVB verifier and validator to a project site to actually do the monitoring on the ground has been problematic in a pandemic. So what that's also created is a need for, essentially, MRV 2.0 tools that can be leveraged by satellite and LiDAR and other drone, satellite and imagery technologies to help to achieve a better and much more scaled picture of emission reductions. So there's this kind of lag, but markets kind of go in those phases, and we'll start seeing that supply constraint be alleviated. So again, hopefully, that makes sense. So, a lot, and to Stephanie's point, there's a lot of corporates that are essentially coming into this essentially, green, let's say, and there's a lot of sophisticated traders that were caught off guard by the actions of a lot of these crypto, kind of, outfits. I think that they that were very stealthy in terms of how they approached it, and then they all came in really really quickly and they ate up the supply, and I think that that's a positive for the market, because now that downside risk for the asset managers is effectively gone, for the project developers it means that there's an incentive to go ahead and implement further higher quality, and for corporates there's even a lesser risk that they're going to be challenged by NGOs and others around sourcing offsets that are dubious in nature, and essentially what's available is high quality, and there'll be more and more of it. So I think it's a really good service that they've done is [to] effectively be the bottom feeders in the market and take out a lot of that older supply.

ベン・ラッテンベリー

それでは早速、需要についての簡単なお話に移りたいと思います。ステファニーさん、それからサムさんにお聞きしたいのですが、市場への資本や投資がますます増えていることを考えると、どのようなリスクや機会が生まれるとお考えですか？ 

ステファニー・ズー

It's a great question, and I think Rene has honestly touched on a lot of this, so I'll just pull out, at least, from our perspective what we probably see as the biggest risk and opportunity. I think the opportunity with a lot of this money being funnelled in is there's great opportunity that the projects and the locations that really need the carbon financing to protect areas or invest in low-carbon recarbonisation is getting it. I think that's very different from what we have seen in the past, definitely, ten years, but even in the past two years ago from now. So I think that's a huge opportunity, and I think the risk, which multiple people have, kind of, touched on, at least, from the end user perspective, is, the more visibility, and the more focus there is on this, the more focus there is [on achieving] one and a half degrees, [on] what we need to do, the more pressure I think there is to make sure we are doing everything right from a brand perspective, [such as] investing in the right projects [and asking question such as] ‘Does it have the right social benefits, [...] biodiversity [benefits], and all of those [other benefits]?’ So I think that is a potential risk just for the end user. With things just moving so quickly, what might be good one day, is not. You can be, kind of, ripped apart for it the next day. So ultimately, I think, for end users the risk there is being able to utilise the data that's out there, for example, from Sylvera, from others, to say, when I make, when we're making decisions to push towards net zero, push towards decarbonisation, we are doing it with the best information possible to make sure we're actually doing good across the board.

ベン・ラッテンベリー

バイヤーはどのようにして投資収益率を確保できる最良のプロジェクトを選ぶのでしょうか？

サム・ギル 

Yeah, that's a great question. I think, as we've already touched on, buyers are incredibly motivated by that piece on quality, and I think the really exciting thing about the market growing in this way, and the prices rising in this way, means that I speak with developers very regularly, and their eyes light up when they talk about the price. It's not out of greed, but out of the potential impact they can have, because, with a carbon price reaching 10 dollars, the types of projects that are now viable are incredible. [...] It's very exciting what this opens up in terms of the realms of possibility, but there still is a very heterogeneous market out there. Quality is on a spectrum and, as we've touched on, in this panel, it is an incredibly complex area to try and navigate, and many of the corporates that are making these net zero and carbon neutral commitments, many of these corporates aren't natives in this market. They don't have the necessary specialism and expertise in-house to execute well in a confusing and complex market, albeit one that has an incredible potential for great impact both on the communities and climate. So I think the really exciting thing about what we're doing at Sylvera is essentially we're able to provide data showing exactly which are the best offsets, helping corporate purchasers understand where they should be directing their investments to have the most impact, but also to minimise the potential for reputational risk that can arise if that corporate investment is potentially a poor quality offset, and so we're very passionate about the work that we're doing, and we believe that we can really support corporates in making efficient and impactful decisions minimising reputational risk.

ベン・ラッテンベリー

炭素市場と第6条に関する最終見解ではないことは明らかです。これらは現在も議論されている問題であり、今後数ヶ月、場合によっては数年にわたり議論されることになるでしょう。

質問と回答

サム・ギル 

Just while we're waiting for Ben to join, I might just kick off by answering Vitaly's question on the new coming satellite solutions that are coming into the space. Yeah, [I] completely agree that they present a cost-effective solution when compared to just traditional MRV. But I think one of the challenges that's, kind of, emerging in this space is there's now a proliferation of entities that are claiming to be able to produce these MRV solutions. But the actual quality of the MRV that they're producing really really varies, and, I think, particularly, also there are questions around how the models that they're building are calibrated. So it's really important when you're building a machine learning model that the data is properly calibrated and the model is properly calibrated. So, at the moment, the challenge is that the whole market, including the traditional MRV solutions, are using what we'd call allometry. So that's basically where you take fixed sample plots, sometimes they vary, but usually it's fixed sample plots, and they measure the circumference of the trees with a tape measure, and there'll be basic geometric models which look at the relationship between the size of a tree's trunk, essentially, and the amount of biomass that's stored in that tree. And then they'll use that data basically to estimate how much carbon is stored in that tree. And they'll take a number of samples per plot, and they'll use that. They'll extrapolate that, to basically work [out] how much carbon is stored in each hectare of that forest type. And that data collection is very very varied in terms of its quality. It has systematic biases. So it actually tends to underestimate the amount of carbon stored in the forest, and so when you're looking at these, like, remote sensing MRV solutions, the question is: 'How are those models calibrated? Are they using basic allometry, or are they using more advanced calibration data sets? How often do those models need to be calibrated?' And then, 'What is the quality and the performance of those models?' So I think, remote sensing first MRV is often presented as a bit of a, kind of, magic solution to the market, but actually there is a real variance in quality in those solutions, and so I think it's right that we look carefully at the standards that we adopt before we implement these models, but, in general, they have a huge part to play in the market, and, I think, a really exciting thing that they open up is also a more quantitative way of testing the additionality and baselines of projects, and so, in the Sylvera methodologies, we use a huge amount of the geospatial data that we drive with our with our tech stack to actually test the quality of the baselines of projects, and so, there's, like, a number of wins to be gained by using these more advanced technologies, because they can help give us assurance on the additionality and the baselines of the projects as well as giving a view on the performance of the projects and the design of the projects. I can see a second question off the back of that too: 'To bounce off Vitaly's question, do you see new actors coming into the MRV space to compete with Verra and Gold standard?' [...]  So essentially, what Gold Standard and Verra are doing are they set methodologies. So they're setting, like, frameworks, that then project developers and VVBs, which are verification bodies, then execute against. So I don't see that MRV, or new MRV players, will be competing with Verra or Gold Standard. It's more about whether Verra and Gold Standard [will] adopt these technologies into their standards. So, yeah, it's not really a question of competition. It's around, basically, evolution of these standards, and then also looking at the Article 6.4 mechanism, whether these new technologies will actually be adopted into these new methodologies, which will need to be spun up under that mechanism. So it's more about adopting those technologies into the current structures. I think a really interesting thing, and something that we're starting to work on, is also about using these data sets and the technologies we're building in, and implementing them in national level monitoring, so, looking at national-level inventories for carbon stocks in terrestrial sinks. But Ben, Domenic's question, that might be one for you. [It’s] just talking about the different bodies that are trying to help set and give some clarity around quality. So you've got the VCMI, you've got the governing body that was set up off the back of the TSVCM recommendations, you've got the SBTI as well. If you've got any thoughts around, those different bodies, and I've also got some thoughts around, project level quality, but, do you want to talk to that?

ベン・ラッテンベリー

ええ、ドメニック、いい質問ですね。自主的なものです。ですから、その定義からして、それは常にちょっとしたワイルド・ウエストになるのだと思います。VCMがコンプライアンス市場に似てくるにつれて、政府もVCMにルールを設けるようになるでしょう。VCMがコンプライ アンス市場の一部となっている地域では、現在そうしてい るように、最終的にはUNFCCCが一つの意思決定 者となり、それに先立って各国政府が独自の制約を設 定することになるでしょう。もう一つ注目すべきは、IFRS財団のISSBです。これは、国際財務報告基準（IFRS）の国際サステナビリティ基準委員会（ISSB）のことで、ほぼすべての国が従うグローバルな会計のルールを設定する機関です。最終的には、炭素クレジットの特定の使用に関してどのような主張ができるかを決定し、それがTSVCMやSBTI、VCMIなどに反映されることになるかもしれません。なぜなら、各団体が自分たちがその役割を果たすべきだと考えているからです。しかし、特にTSVCMやICVCMとVCMIは同じコインの裏表のようなもので、ICVCMは信用供給に、VCMIは信用需要に重点を置いていると考えれば、この2つが合併する可能性もあります。 

サム・ギル 

私たちの観点からは、特に供給サイドで、プロジェクトの品質がどのようなものであるかにつ いてのハイレベルの原則、また、管轄レベルでは、原則レベルで、何が良いオフセットになるかにつ いての調和が高まっているように思います。そのため、オフセットのパフォーマンスのモニタリングのような観点から、MRVの質について十分な保証を追加する必要があります。しかし、私たちの観点からは、このような原則ではここまでしか達成できないと思います。ですから、プリンシパルレベルで合意するだけでは不十分で、プロジェクトレベルごとに、実際にどのプロジェクトが、そのレベルで設定され合意された原則に実際に適合しているかどうかを見るためのデータが必要なのです。ですから、プロジェクト・レベルで見て、最適なオフセットを選ぶことができるようにすることが本当に重要なのです。

ベン・ラッテンベリー

サム、ここでジョーから興味深い質問があります。『企業のバイヤーがVCMから購入する際、第6条の5％の適応と2％のキャンセル徴収を自主的に採用すると思いますか？ 

サム・ギル 

つまり、私は何も見ていません。このような趣旨の議論はまだ見たことがありませんが、第6条はまだかなりホットな状態なのでしょう。つまり、原則的には、そうなることは大いに考えられます。[市場に参加している多くのバイヤーが達成しようとしていることの精神に非常に近いので、そのようなことが起きても不思議ではありません。そのような趣旨のイニシアチブは見たことがありませんが、おそらく影響を与えるのはそれほど難しくないでしょう。この種の取引の場として台頭しつつあるさまざまな取引所の間で、ある種の合意や意識の一致が必要なだけで、もしそれが実現すれば、本当にエキサイティングなことになるでしょう。第6条は本当に素晴らしい先例になると思います。ベンはどう思いますか？ 

ベン・ラッテンベリー

しかし、ここ2、3年で、信用力の高さでトップ争いが始まっているように、非常に斬新な技術に投資するために1トン300ドル以上かける企業も出てきているように、ディスカウントでもトップ争いが始まるでしょう。どのようなディスカウントを適用するかということで、市場のトップエンドが互いに競り勝とうとしているのを目にするようになるでしょう。もう一つ、サム、カミラからの質問ですが、除去技術の組み込み、特に基準や会計ルールについてどうお考えですか？

サム・ギル 

ええ、すでに自主的な炭素市場団体によって、除去方法論が作成されています。いくつかの草案が作成されています。正直なところ、会計の観点から言えば、この種の技術を政府レベルの会計に組み込むのはかなり簡単で、方法論も理論的にはかなり単純なものです、しかし、私は、この種の技術は、極めて簡単に自主的な炭素市場のエコシステムに組み込まれると考えています。ですから、特に複雑なものだとは思いません。[除去技術については、規模を拡大し、効率的で大規模に展開できるようにすることのほうがはるかに重要です。

This was the end of the questions and answers session. If you have any questions please send them along to sales@sylvera.io.