Environmental integrity beyond carbon: Environmental co‐benefits and differentiated obligations in carbon market governance
炭素を超えた環境の完全性：炭素市場ガバナンスにおける環境共同便益と差別化された義務 (AI 翻訳)
Sara Tolonen
🤖 gxceed AI 要約
日本語
本論文は、炭素市場ガバナンスにおいて環境共同便益がどのように統合されているかを、UNFCCC、EU CRCF、主要な自主的炭素市場基準を比較分析する。環境保護策は手続き的リスク管理として組み込まれ、共同便益はインセンティブベースのメカニズムで運用される。ガバナンスの断片化が明らかになった。
English
This paper examines how environmental co-benefits are integrated into carbon market governance across UNFCCC, EU CRCF, and leading voluntary carbon market standards. It finds that environmental safeguards are embedded as procedural risk-management mechanisms, while co-benefits are operationalized through incentive-based tools at the project level. The governance landscape is fragmented, with uneven distribution of responsibilities.
Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.
📝 gxceed 編集解説 — Why this matters
日本のGX文脈において
日本はGX-ETSやJCMを通じて炭素市場を発展させており、本論文の環境共同便益の統合に関する分析は、炭素クレジットの質を高める制度設計に示唆を与える。
In the global GX context
As carbon markets expand under Article 6 and voluntary initiatives, this paper provides a critical comparative analysis of how environmental co-benefits are legally treated, informing debates on carbon credit integrity and the EU CRCF.
👥 読者別の含意
🔬研究者:Provides a detailed comparative legal analysis of carbon market governance, highlighting gaps in the treatment of environmental co-benefits.
🏢実務担当者:Credit developers and buyers should understand how different frameworks recognize co-benefits, which may affect credit valuation and compliance.
🏛政策担当者:Offers insights into designing carbon market regulations that integrate biodiversity and climate goals, addressing fragmentation.
📄 Abstract（原文）
Abstract Carbon markets promote nature‐based solutions (NbS) as a means of advancing climate mitigation and biodiversity objectives. Credits from these activities frequently claim benefits beyond carbon. Yet, legal frameworks remain largely structured around carbon accounting, raising questions about how broader environmental outcomes are addressed in practice. Environmental integrity encompasses both harm avoidance through safeguards and the proactive generation of environmental co‐benefits, but their legal treatment remains uneven. This article examines whether, how and with what legal effects environmental co‐benefits are integrated into carbon market governance. It undertakes a comparative, multi‐level analysis of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the European Union Carbon Removal Certification Framework (EU CRCF) and leading voluntary carbon market (VCM) standards. The comparison identifies two patterns. First, environmental safeguards are commonly embedded as procedural risk‐management mechanisms tied to monitoring, eligibility and certification requirements, whereas environmental co‐benefits are recognised but operationalised through flexible or incentive‐based mechanisms, such as disclosure tools, contractual arrangements and market incentives, primarily at the project level. Second, implementation varies across governance levels: UNFCCC mechanisms combine international rules with national implementation; the EU CRCF operates as a regional regulatory certification framework; and VCM standards rely on private certification and verification. These patterns reveal a fragmented governance landscape in which public regulation and private standards structure environmental outcomes while allocating responsibilities unevenly across market actors.
🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース
- openalex https://doi.org/10.1111/reel.70077first seen 2026-06-20 05:39:48
🔔 こうした論文の新着を逃したくない方は キーワードアラート に登録（無料・3キーワードまで）。
gxceed は公開メタデータに基づく研究支援データセットです。要約・翻訳・解説は AI 支援で生成されています。 最終的な解釈・検証は利用者が原典資料に基づいて行うことを前提とします。