First-timer at COP28: Reflections and tips for the future
Vlinder’s co-founder Lena Mechenkova has attended UNFCCC COP 28 for the first time and is sharing her impressions and main takeaways.
As I wrap up my time at COP 28, I realize my journey has been different from what I expected. I attended fewer sessions, gained less clarity, and saw Dubai mostly from a metro train window on my daily trip to the COP venue. Yet, I find the connections made and virtual faces finally met worth spending time and effort. On my final day at COP 28, I’d like to share my thoughts on the challenges and next steps needed to keep ambitious climate goals alive.
Voluntary Carbon Markets (VCM): Imperfect Yet Viable
Voluntary carbon markets aren’t flawless, but they offer a practical avenue to finance climate solutions.
Vlinder, as a project developer, remains open to various funding sources for mangrove reforestation. From what we see, grants can work to bootstrap a reforestation project, but different commitments need to come in for plantation scaling and long-term forest management after planting. So, the focus should be on making nature-based solutions appealing to investors.
The contribution approach where the companies with Net Zero strategies can claim that they have made a climate and/or biodiversity contribution by implementing a project is promising and we hope to see it becoming more popular and developed.
In regards to VCMs, there were $16 billion invested in NbS from 2012 to 2022 through them, with an additional $9 billion expected by 2025 in ongoing projects (MSCI). Collaboration between major VCM standards and ICVCM on a unified approach for carbon credit integrity is underway. Let’s enhance the scrutiny applied to VCMs and ensure they function effectively in funding nature-based projects, rather than rejecting or blaming them.
Bridging the Funding Gap
One recurring theme in the panel discussions that I attended was the abundance of available funds to implement nature-based carbon solutions. Yet we see a constant struggle for early-stage reforestation projects to access them.
The upfront costs for project design, partnership development, legal compliance, baseline studies, awareness campaigns, setting up nurseries, training, and especially planting are substantial. The countries rich in mangrove restoration opportunities often pose complex risks, the project investment horizon extends over the long term (20–40 years), and the break-even point is not reached until around year 8. Bridging the gap between early-stage projects committed to ensuring quality outcomes, and the necessary funding is still a huge challenge to address.
Breaking down Silos
One of the reasons for the problem mentioned above could be the lack of constructive discussions among the diverse stakeholders in carbon project finance and development. At COP, I witnessed numerous panels where investors exchanged thoughts, project developers voiced their concerns, and Global South countries struggled with the challenges they had to address. Multi-party discussions and genuine dialogue could help and would provide a platform for meaningful change.
It’s crucial to have project developers, governments, communities, international organizations, scientists, NGOs, standards, investors, and large greenhouse gas emitters more often in a shared space. We need to sit down together to find a win-win.
Knowledge Sharing Needed
We inhabit a comfortable bubble where discussions around carbon market integrity, Article 6, and the significance of high-quality carbon credits are part of a shared narrative. Yet outside of our bubble, we have a whole world of stakeholders who should be aware of these discussions and need to understand the details. This education is not their responsibility; it’s ours. We need to enhance our efforts in knowledge sharing and outreach, and not to fear being louder and more passionate about what we advocate for.
Transparency and Learning from Mistakes
While project developers ask for transparency, it’s frequently the buyers who hesitate. They are reluctant to disclose pricing details and may restrict the association of their company names with specific projects. Nevertheless, it is essential to introduce transparency to the market.
At times it may seem beneficial to refrain from sharing or even taking any action at all — this way, one can avoid criticism for acquiring imperfect carbon credits, accepting funds from the wrong company, or implementing a methodology that could have been improved. Let’s make mistakes and then correct them, learn from each other’s errors, and encourage sharing not only successes but also failures.
Speeding up Carbon Removals
The call to action at the COP was clear: stop calling, start acting. Timelines offered by governments, investors, and registries are often too slow for project developers. Project development teams are lean, and they find themselves stuck in many months-long due diligence with investors. Government approvals may take years, and responses from standards or VVBs can stretch over several months.
We can’t afford to wait that long if we aim for radical scaling up of carbon removals. As the world’s ambition is growing to reverse the drastic effects of climate change, the developers need to be empowered to implement larger and better projects that consider the diverse needs of all stakeholders.
