In March 2026, Welhunt co-hosted a closed-door CORSIA Roundtable in collaboration with Sylvera, bringing together key stakeholders across Taiwan’s aviation and carbon market ecosystem. Participants included the Civil Aviation Administration (CAA), Taiwan Carbon Solution Exchange (TCX), China Airlines, EVA Air, and other aviation sector representatives.
The session featured Sylvera’s Policy Team experts who provided a comprehensive overview of the evolving landscape of CORSIA Phase 1 (2024–2026), covering regulatory developments, supply-demand dynamics, and emerging pricing signals. The discussion also incorporated a dedicated Q&A session addressing pre-submitted questions from participants, allowing for targeted clarification on key areas of concern.
From Policy Framework to Operational Market
One of the central themes of the roundtable was the transition of CORSIA from a policy-driven framework into an operational compliance market. While the scheme has been under development for years, Phase 1 marks the first period where airlines must actively secure eligible emissions units to meet compliance obligations.
This transition is revealing structural challenges that go beyond policy design, particularly in the conversion of theoretical supply into fully eligible credits.
Supply Constraints Driven by Authorization and Corresponding Adjustments
A key insight highlighted during the session is that the current market is not constrained by a lack of underlying projects, but rather by the ability to convert those projects into CORSIA-eligible units.
Host country authorization and the requirement for corresponding adjustments (or approved insurance mechanisms) have emerged as the primary bottlenecks. These factors significantly limit the volume of credits that can be labeled as eligible for Phase 1, creating a gap between potential and actual supply.
Emerging Supply-Demand Imbalance and Pricing Implications
The roundtable also pointed to a growing imbalance between supply and demand. While demand from airlines is expected to increase steadily during Phase 1, the availability of eligible credits remains limited.
This imbalance is beginning to shape market behavior, with increasing attention on delivery certainty, eligibility guarantees, and contract structures. Pricing signals in the market are gradually reflecting these constraints, particularly for credits with clear CORSIA eligibility pathways.
Procurement Strategy: Timing, Certainty, and Risk Management
Another important takeaway is the shift in procurement considerations among airline buyers. Rather than focusing solely on price, buyers are increasingly evaluating:
．Delivery timelines aligned with compliance deadlines
．Certainty of eligibility (including authorization and CA status)
．Counterparty reliability and contractual safeguards
This reflects a broader shift toward risk management in carbon procurement, as compliance exposure becomes more immediate.
Strengthening Market Understanding in Taiwan
As Taiwan’s aviation sector prepares for deeper engagement with CORSIA, the roundtable served as an important platform to bridge global market developments with local stakeholders.
Welhunt remains committed to supporting market participants through access to high-quality carbon credit supply, market insights, and transaction expertise. As demand for CORSIA Eligible Emissions Units (CEEUs) continues to evolve, early engagement and informed procurement strategies will be critical.
https://welhunt.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/logo-new-color-1.png00welhunt.ithttps://welhunt.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/logo-new-color-1.pngwelhunt.it2026-03-01 09:50:342026-04-08 09:55:58Welhunt & Sylvera Co-host Closed-door CORSIA Roundtable: Market Readiness Becomes the Key Challenge for Phase 1
Taiwan will begin collecting its first carbon fee in May 2026, when companies report and settle their 2025 emissions. However, an interesting policy timing issue has emerged. The regulatory framework that would allow companies to use international carbon credits to offset the carbon fee is expected to be announced for consultation in April and only take effect in July. In other words, foreign carbon credits will not be usable for this year’s carbon fee payment simply because the regulation will not be in place in time.
From a carbon market perspective, several observations stand out.
1. The economics of Taiwan’s carbon fee are very different from most carbon pricing systems.
Taiwan’s carbon fee is set at TWD 300/t (~USD 9), but companies that commit to approved reduction pathways can reduce the effective rate to TWD 100 or even TWD 50/t (~USD 1.5–3).
For comparison:
• Singapore carbon tax: USD 25/t (rising to USD 50–80)
• EU ETS: ~EUR 60–80/t
• Even many voluntary carbon credits trade above USD 5–20/t
At USD 1–3/t, the price signal for purchasing offsets is extremely weak.
2. This makes it unlikely that companies will buy carbon credits purely to reduce the carbon fee.
From a rational cost perspective, purchasing either international or domestic credits would rarely make economic sense.
3. Ironically, domestic credits may still be used—but not through active trading.
Some high-emitting companies in Taiwan already hold domestic credits issued by the regulator from past mitigation projects. Meanwhile, credits generated from relatively simple energy efficiency projects (such as LED upgrades or chiller replacements) are currently listed on local trading platforms at around TWD 3,000–4,500/t (~USD 93–140)—far above the carbon fee level and with limited liquidity. Under such conditions, companies may simply use their existing domestic credit inventories rather than purchasing credits in the market.
4. International credit eligibility remains uncertain.
If Taiwan follows approaches adopted in other jurisdictions—such as Singapore—it is highly likely that eligible credits would need Host Country Corresponding Adjustments (CA) to avoid double counting under the host country’s NDC. This would significantly narrow the pool of eligible international credits.
Welhunt View
At current carbon fee levels (TWD 50–100/t effective cost), the carbon fee is unlikely to generate meaningful demand for carbon credits in the near term. Instead, Taiwan’s carbon pricing system may initially function more as a regulatory signal and data-building mechanism, rather than a strong market driver for carbon credit demand.
The real test for Taiwan’s carbon market will likely come in future phases—when carbon prices rise, international credit rules are finalized, and companies begin aligning with global standards such as SBTi and Scope 3 supply chain pressure. It will be fascinating to see how Taiwan balances carbon pricing, industrial competitiveness, and carbon market development in the coming years.
https://welhunt.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/logo-new-color-1.png00welhunt.ithttps://welhunt.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/logo-new-color-1.pngwelhunt.it2026-03-01 09:48:052026-04-08 09:50:06Major Emitters to Begin Paying Taiwan Carbon Fee in May; International Carbon Credits Not Eligible for Offsetting in 2026
January’s carbon market developments highlight a structural evolution in how corporates approach carbon removal. Rather than relying on generic offsets, leading companies are increasingly constructing nuanced, multi-tier portfolios that combine both scalable nature-based removals and long-duration engineered solutions.
In the United States, Nature-Based Solutions (NBS) removals are reaching unprecedented scale. Grassroots Carbon delivered 1.9 million tons of verified soil carbon removals, with more than 1.5 million tons already retired by major corporates including Microsoft and Nestlé. While soil carbon is typically classified as a non-durable removal due to its biological storage characteristics, the project demonstrates that large-scale deployment and corporate confidence can be achieved when supported by rigorous MRV frameworks, including deep soil sampling and microbial DNA analysis.
Policy support is further accelerating this trajectory. Under the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), generous subsidies for Direct Air Capture (DAC) are establishing price floors and financial certainty for industrial-scale carbon removal projects. This policy environment is helping engineered CDR technologies progress from early-stage experimentation toward commercially viable infrastructure.
At the same time, corporate procurement strategies are being reshaped by evolving global standards and rapidly expanding demand. According to the CDR.fyi leaderboard, Microsoft continues to dominate the market as the largest purchaser of carbon removals, securing future supply through aggressive long-term offtake agreements. This shift toward high-durability, engineered removals aligns closely with the trajectory outlined in the SBTi Net Zero Standard V2, which increasingly emphasizes the role of long-lived CDR in neutralizing residual emissions by 2035. Meanwhile, the introduction of ICVCM Core Carbon Principles (CCP) and intensifying regulatory scrutiny on greenwashing—particularly within the EU—are pushing Western corporates to prioritize durable removals capable of withstanding both regulatory and reputational scrutiny.
On the supply side, mechanisms such as Puro.earth’s on-demand issuance service and Frontier’s advanced market commitments are expanding the pipeline for measurable carbon storage. However, a notable geographic divergence is emerging in the demand landscape.
While Western technology companies are aggressively securing high-durability CDR supply, demand among Asian corporates remains significantly more cautious at current price levels. Many Asian buyers continue to prioritize traditional offsets or scalable NBS solutions, reflecting both cost sensitivity and the earlier stage of corporate decarbonization strategies in the region.
This divergence may have important implications for future market dynamics. If global standards such as SBTi increasingly favor durable carbon removal, companies that delay engagement with high-durability supply could face tighter availability and higher procurement costs in later phases of the net-zero transition.
Welhunt View
We believe the carbon market is entering a phase where durability, MRV robustness, and policy alignment will increasingly define credit value. As durability tiers become a central organizing principle of the removal market, the ability to bridge emerging CDR supply with evolving regional demand will become a key capability for carbon market intermediaries.
https://welhunt.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/logo-new-color-1.png00welhunt.ithttps://welhunt.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/logo-new-color-1.pngwelhunt.it2026-01-01 17:36:372026-03-20 17:38:24The Acceleration of CDR: Corporates Shift From Offsets to Long Term Carbon Strategies
COP30 marked a clear shift in global climate discussions—from ambition-setting toward execution.
The focus in Belém moved beyond whether climate finance is needed, centering instead on how carbon markets and international cooperation mechanisms can effectively convert capital into measurable and verifiable emission reductions.
A key signal from COP30 was the continued acceleration of Article 6 of the Paris Agreement. Article 6.2 remains the most advanced pathway, with bilateral cooperation already being operationalized by countries such as Japan and Switzerland through ITMO transfers supported by increasingly robust MRV frameworks. These developments are laying the foundation for a more interoperable international carbon market with stronger linkages to compliance systems.
Progress under Article 6.4 has been slower, but COP30 delivered an important milestone with the approval of the first UN-sanctioned mitigation methodology. With the first issuance of A6.4ERs expected as early as 2026, the market is moving closer to a globally supervised crediting mechanism that could, over time, bridge voluntary and compliance demand.
Beyond the UN framework, COP30 also highlighted emerging efforts to reshape the global carbon market architecture. Brazil’s proposed “Open Coalition on Compliance Carbon Markets” signals a shift toward coordinated carbon pricing systems across jurisdictions. The initiative aims to align market rules, enhance transparency, and strengthen consistency in MRV systems and crediting standards, thereby reducing disparities across national compliance markets.
Under the current landscape, regulated carbon markets vary significantly in design and credit usage rules. For companies operating across jurisdictions, this creates a fragmented regulatory environment—requiring them to navigate multiple systems simultaneously, increasing compliance costs and operational complexity. The coalition reflects a growing ambition among countries to reduce these frictions through coordination, and to actively shape global carbon market rules rather than passively responding to unilateral mechanisms such as the EU’s CBAM.
These developments reinforce a broader structural trend: regulated carbon markets are expected to become the primary driver of global carbon demand. According to BNEF, there are now over 80 carbon pricing systems globally, with approximately 40% already allowing the use of carbon credits—a share that continues to rise.
In this context, the voluntary carbon market (VCM) is not disappearing, but evolving. Originally viewed as a transitional mechanism, the VCM is increasingly becoming a complementary tool that supports the implementation of Article 6 and broader compliance markets. As a result, the carbon market is no longer a single system, but a structurally segmented ecosystem—where different types of credits serve different buyer needs across voluntary and regulated contexts.
At the same time, recent developments highlight an important nuance: alignment with Article 6 does not necessarily equate to high-quality carbon credits.
Criticism from organizations such as Carbon Market Watch suggests that the Article 6 framework does not inherently guarantee environmental integrity, as credit quality remains heavily dependent on host-country governance. This concern is further supported by rating agency analysis indicating that a significant portion of CORSIA Phase 1 (2024–2026) eligible credits—up to 81%—are rated “BB” or “B”, reflecting a low likelihood of delivering the claimed emission reductions.
In addition, market discussions around the Paris Agreement Crediting Mechanism (PACM) have raised concerns that a substantial share of A6.4 credits may originate from the transition of legacy CDM projects. Given longstanding criticisms of CDM credit quality, some market participants question whether A6.4 represents a fundamental improvement, or a continuation of existing structural weaknesses.
These dynamics suggest that while Article 6.2 and 6.4 represent important progress at the policy level, quality differentiation will remain a critical factor at the market level. Market participants should avoid assuming that Article 6-aligned credits are inherently high-quality, and instead continue to rely on independent assessment frameworks and rigorous due diligence.
At the same time, it is important to recognize that Article 6-aligned credits are already demonstrating stronger pricing signals in the market, reflecting their policy relevance and potential compliance linkage.
Welhunt View
We believe COP30 marks the beginning of a policy-integrated carbon market, where compliance systems, international cooperation mechanisms, and voluntary markets are becoming increasingly interconnected.
In this evolving landscape, the carbon market is shifting from a single, voluntary-driven system toward a structurally segmented ecosystem shaped by policy alignment, regulatory demand, and buyer-specific needs.
While Article 6 will play a central role in shaping future market architecture, quality and credibility will remain the key differentiators. The ability to navigate the gap between policy alignment, credit integrity, and pricing signals will define competitive advantage in the next phase of carbon market development.
https://welhunt.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/logo-new-color-1.png00welhunt.ithttps://welhunt.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/logo-new-color-1.pngwelhunt.it2025-12-01 17:28:242026-03-20 17:32:04COP30: Carbon Markets Move from Framework to Execution
Verra’s recent enforcement actions against multiple China-based AFOLU projects mark a structural shift in how integrity is defined and enforced within the voluntary carbon market (VCM).
While earlier scrutiny focused primarily on methodological robustness—such as additionality, baselines, and quantification—the current wave of actions signals a move upstream. Integrity is no longer assessed solely at the level of carbon accounting, but increasingly at the level of legal validity, governance, and project authorization.
Following allegations of falsified or invalid government approval documents, Verra canceled four AFOLU projects and required developers to replace prior Buffer Pool contributions with market-eligible credits. Enhanced quality reviews have also been initiated across 35 active projects, alongside independent audits of previously withdrawn projects that had issued significant volumes of VCUs. Validation and Verification Bodies (VVBs) have been asked to provide additional evidence confirming the legitimacy of original government approvals.
This escalation reflects a broader redefinition of quality in the VCM. Carbon credit integrity is no longer determined solely by environmental performance, but increasingly by the credibility of underlying legal and institutional frameworks.
At the same time, these developments expose structural weaknesses in the current verification system. Registries have historically relied heavily on VVBs to validate project documentation and ensure integrity. However, recent incidents suggest that this layer of oversight may not be sufficiently robust—particularly in verifying legal and administrative foundations such as host-country approvals.
In response, two potential shifts are emerging. Registries may begin to engage more directly with host-country authorities to verify project legitimacy, reducing reliance on third-party verification alone. At the same time, oversight of VVBs is likely to tighten, with performance-based monitoring frameworks, public disclosure, and potential sanctions for underperforming entities.
As a result, the market is entering a phase of structural segmentation. Credits are becoming differentiated not only by methodology, but by jurisdictional risk, governance quality, and alignment with emerging standards such as the ICVCM Core Carbon Principles (CCP) and Article 6 frameworks.
From a supply-demand perspective, the implications are significant—particularly in Asia. China has historically been a major source of cost-competitive AFOLU credits, especially ARR projects priced around US$5/t, which have been widely adopted by buyers seeking scalable nature-based removals under budget constraints.
However, increased scrutiny is likely to disrupt this dynamic. On the supply side, the availability of low-cost ARR credits may tighten as projects face higher verification thresholds. On the demand side, buyers may become more cautious toward lower-priced credits, given heightened integrity risks.
This could lead to a near-term reallocation of demand—away from low-cost ARR and toward higher-integrity nature-based removals—potentially accompanied by upward pressure on pricing and buyer budget expectations.
For buyers, the immediate compliance impact remains limited, with no current indication of retroactive enforcement on retired credits. However, portfolio-level risks are increasing. Legacy credits—particularly those from higher-risk jurisdictions or weaker governance frameworks—may face growing scrutiny, creating both reputational and valuation challenges.
For market participants, the implications are clear. Due diligence must extend beyond methodology and into legal robustness, host-country governance, and long-term policy alignment. At the same time, access to high-integrity supply—particularly CCP-aligned or Article 6-compatible credits—will become increasingly competitive.
Welhunt View
We believe the VCM is entering a phase where integrity is no longer a differentiator, but a prerequisite—and increasingly, a pricing variable.
As the market reprices carbon credits based on legal robustness and governance quality, the ability to identify, access, and structure high-integrity supply will define competitive advantage in the next phase of market evolution.
https://welhunt.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/logo-new-color-1.png00welhunt.ithttps://welhunt.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/logo-new-color-1.pngwelhunt.it2025-12-01 17:18:472026-03-20 17:23:10Verra Steps Up Integrity Reviews in China AFOLU Market
The EU’s agreement on a 90% emissions reduction target by 2040, including an allowance for up to 5% of reductions to be met with international carbon credits, sends an important demand signal to the market. Even though the EU has not yet spelled out detailed quality criteria, simply confirming that credits can play a limited role in the 2040 framework is enough to boost confidence among developers, host countries, and intermediaries that compliant demand will grow.
This 5% window matters less for its absolute size and more for what it represents: a major jurisdiction formally recognizing that international credits will remain part of the climate toolbox alongside domestic abatement. That endorsement can help unlock new project pipelines, encourage governments to clarify Article 6 procedures, and accelerate financial commitments into high integrity mitigation activities. As expectations around integrity tighten from buyers, standards bodies, and civil society, this additional policy backed demand is likely to favor credits that can demonstrate strong governance and transparency, even if the EU has not yet codified specific filters.
Indonesia’s COP30 experience and the SBTi Corporate Net Zero Standard v2 draft both sit within this broader shift. Indonesia’s success in securing substantial carbon credit commitments showcases how governments are racing to capture opportunity as demand signals strengthen, while also highlighting that reputational and regulatory scrutiny will decide which parts of that supply are investable. Meanwhile, SBTi’s draft approach, encouraging companies to focus on deep internal reductions while still recognizing a role for high quality credits, aligns with the EU’s message that credits are not going away, but will be used more selectively.
From Welhunt’s perspective, the implication is clear: policy driven growth in demand, led by signals like the EU’s 5% allowance, is creating a larger but more discriminating market. Traders who can secure reliable supply, structure long term offtakes, and help clients navigate evolving expectations will be best positioned to capture the upside of this next phase in carbon market development.
https://welhunt.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/logo-new-color-1.png00welhunt.ithttps://welhunt.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/logo-new-color-1.pngwelhunt.it2025-11-01 14:22:462026-02-03 10:43:46EU’s 5% Signal: Room for Growth in High Quality Credits
The rising benchmark prices and the increasing structuring of procurement events point to a maturing and increasingly transparent market for CORSIA-eligible carbon credits. For commodity traders like Welhunt, these developments are not just milestones—they represent a shifting market landscape that opens up meaningful trading, offtake, and hedging opportunities.
The growing demand is clearly reflected in auction price trends: the average clearing price of CORSIA-eligible units rose from $21.70/ton in Q1 2025 to $22.55/ton in Q3, signaling growing urgency among compliance buyers. This upward pressure is further amplified by regulatory shifts.
Countries like the UK and France are moving to incorporate CORSIA into domestic law, increasing pressure on their national airlines to comply—or face penalties. This trend marks a new era of accountability and compliance-driven demand in the aviation sector.
However, supply is not keeping pace. According to the MSCI CORSIA Market Outlook Report, Phase 1 could face a supply shortfall ranging from 12 to 64 million tons (MtCO2e). As a result, MSCI models project that prices may rise significantly—anywhere between US$26 to US$63 per ton depending on the scenario.
In response to tightening supply and rising spot prices, more buyers are turning to forward contracts and guaranteed offtake agreements to secure future delivery at competitive prices. This shift not only stabilizes procurement strategies for airlines but also creates a structured, longer-term demand outlook for developers and traders alike.
As a proactive VCM trading firm, Welhunt continues to support clients by sharing market insights and identifying optimal procurement windows. Our team has successfully helped airline clients secure CORSIA-eligible emission units (CEEUs), both in the spot and forward markets, even amid tightening supply.
We believe the CORSIA market is transitioning from speculative to strategic, and those with a deep understanding of both policy signals and market dynamics will be best positioned to lead.
Welhunt & Sylvera Co-host Closed-door CORSIA Roundtable: Market Readiness Becomes the Key Challenge for Phase 1
In March 2026, Welhunt co-hosted a closed-door CORSIA Roundtable in collaboration with Sylvera, bringing together key stakeholders across Taiwan’s aviation and carbon market ecosystem. Participants included the Civil Aviation Administration (CAA), Taiwan Carbon Solution Exchange (TCX), China Airlines, EVA Air, and other aviation sector representatives.
The session featured Sylvera’s Policy Team experts who provided a comprehensive overview of the evolving landscape of CORSIA Phase 1 (2024–2026), covering regulatory developments, supply-demand dynamics, and emerging pricing signals. The discussion also incorporated a dedicated Q&A session addressing pre-submitted questions from participants, allowing for targeted clarification on key areas of concern.
From Policy Framework to Operational Market
One of the central themes of the roundtable was the transition of CORSIA from a policy-driven framework into an operational compliance market. While the scheme has been under development for years, Phase 1 marks the first period where airlines must actively secure eligible emissions units to meet compliance obligations.
This transition is revealing structural challenges that go beyond policy design, particularly in the conversion of theoretical supply into fully eligible credits.
Supply Constraints Driven by Authorization and Corresponding Adjustments
A key insight highlighted during the session is that the current market is not constrained by a lack of underlying projects, but rather by the ability to convert those projects into CORSIA-eligible units.
Host country authorization and the requirement for corresponding adjustments (or approved insurance mechanisms) have emerged as the primary bottlenecks. These factors significantly limit the volume of credits that can be labeled as eligible for Phase 1, creating a gap between potential and actual supply.
Emerging Supply-Demand Imbalance and Pricing Implications
The roundtable also pointed to a growing imbalance between supply and demand. While demand from airlines is expected to increase steadily during Phase 1, the availability of eligible credits remains limited.
This imbalance is beginning to shape market behavior, with increasing attention on delivery certainty, eligibility guarantees, and contract structures. Pricing signals in the market are gradually reflecting these constraints, particularly for credits with clear CORSIA eligibility pathways.
Procurement Strategy: Timing, Certainty, and Risk Management
Another important takeaway is the shift in procurement considerations among airline buyers. Rather than focusing solely on price, buyers are increasingly evaluating:
．Delivery timelines aligned with compliance deadlines
．Certainty of eligibility (including authorization and CA status)
．Counterparty reliability and contractual safeguards
This reflects a broader shift toward risk management in carbon procurement, as compliance exposure becomes more immediate.
Strengthening Market Understanding in Taiwan
As Taiwan’s aviation sector prepares for deeper engagement with CORSIA, the roundtable served as an important platform to bridge global market developments with local stakeholders.
Welhunt remains committed to supporting market participants through access to high-quality carbon credit supply, market insights, and transaction expertise. As demand for CORSIA Eligible Emissions Units (CEEUs) continues to evolve, early engagement and informed procurement strategies will be critical.
Major Emitters to Begin Paying Taiwan Carbon Fee in May; International Carbon Credits Not Eligible for Offsetting in 2026
Taiwan will begin collecting its first carbon fee in May 2026, when companies report and settle their 2025 emissions. However, an interesting policy timing issue has emerged. The regulatory framework that would allow companies to use international carbon credits to offset the carbon fee is expected to be announced for consultation in April and only take effect in July. In other words, foreign carbon credits will not be usable for this year’s carbon fee payment simply because the regulation will not be in place in time.
From a carbon market perspective, several observations stand out.
1. The economics of Taiwan’s carbon fee are very different from most carbon pricing systems.
Taiwan’s carbon fee is set at TWD 300/t (~USD 9), but companies that commit to approved reduction pathways can reduce the effective rate to TWD 100 or even TWD 50/t (~USD 1.5–3).
For comparison:
• Singapore carbon tax: USD 25/t (rising to USD 50–80)
• EU ETS: ~EUR 60–80/t
• Even many voluntary carbon credits trade above USD 5–20/t
At USD 1–3/t, the price signal for purchasing offsets is extremely weak.
2. This makes it unlikely that companies will buy carbon credits purely to reduce the carbon fee.
From a rational cost perspective, purchasing either international or domestic credits would rarely make economic sense.
3. Ironically, domestic credits may still be used—but not through active trading.
Some high-emitting companies in Taiwan already hold domestic credits issued by the regulator from past mitigation projects. Meanwhile, credits generated from relatively simple energy efficiency projects (such as LED upgrades or chiller replacements) are currently listed on local trading platforms at around TWD 3,000–4,500/t (~USD 93–140)—far above the carbon fee level and with limited liquidity. Under such conditions, companies may simply use their existing domestic credit inventories rather than purchasing credits in the market.
4. International credit eligibility remains uncertain.
If Taiwan follows approaches adopted in other jurisdictions—such as Singapore—it is highly likely that eligible credits would need Host Country Corresponding Adjustments (CA) to avoid double counting under the host country’s NDC. This would significantly narrow the pool of eligible international credits.
Welhunt View
At current carbon fee levels (TWD 50–100/t effective cost), the carbon fee is unlikely to generate meaningful demand for carbon credits in the near term. Instead, Taiwan’s carbon pricing system may initially function more as a regulatory signal and data-building mechanism, rather than a strong market driver for carbon credit demand.
The real test for Taiwan’s carbon market will likely come in future phases—when carbon prices rise, international credit rules are finalized, and companies begin aligning with global standards such as SBTi and Scope 3 supply chain pressure. It will be fascinating to see how Taiwan balances carbon pricing, industrial competitiveness, and carbon market development in the coming years.
The Acceleration of CDR: Corporates Shift From Offsets to Long Term Carbon Strategies
January’s carbon market developments highlight a structural evolution in how corporates approach carbon removal. Rather than relying on generic offsets, leading companies are increasingly constructing nuanced, multi-tier portfolios that combine both scalable nature-based removals and long-duration engineered solutions.
In the United States, Nature-Based Solutions (NBS) removals are reaching unprecedented scale. Grassroots Carbon delivered 1.9 million tons of verified soil carbon removals, with more than 1.5 million tons already retired by major corporates including Microsoft and Nestlé. While soil carbon is typically classified as a non-durable removal due to its biological storage characteristics, the project demonstrates that large-scale deployment and corporate confidence can be achieved when supported by rigorous MRV frameworks, including deep soil sampling and microbial DNA analysis.
Policy support is further accelerating this trajectory. Under the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), generous subsidies for Direct Air Capture (DAC) are establishing price floors and financial certainty for industrial-scale carbon removal projects. This policy environment is helping engineered CDR technologies progress from early-stage experimentation toward commercially viable infrastructure.
At the same time, corporate procurement strategies are being reshaped by evolving global standards and rapidly expanding demand. According to the CDR.fyi leaderboard, Microsoft continues to dominate the market as the largest purchaser of carbon removals, securing future supply through aggressive long-term offtake agreements. This shift toward high-durability, engineered removals aligns closely with the trajectory outlined in the SBTi Net Zero Standard V2, which increasingly emphasizes the role of long-lived CDR in neutralizing residual emissions by 2035. Meanwhile, the introduction of ICVCM Core Carbon Principles (CCP) and intensifying regulatory scrutiny on greenwashing—particularly within the EU—are pushing Western corporates to prioritize durable removals capable of withstanding both regulatory and reputational scrutiny.
On the supply side, mechanisms such as Puro.earth’s on-demand issuance service and Frontier’s advanced market commitments are expanding the pipeline for measurable carbon storage. However, a notable geographic divergence is emerging in the demand landscape.
While Western technology companies are aggressively securing high-durability CDR supply, demand among Asian corporates remains significantly more cautious at current price levels. Many Asian buyers continue to prioritize traditional offsets or scalable NBS solutions, reflecting both cost sensitivity and the earlier stage of corporate decarbonization strategies in the region.
This divergence may have important implications for future market dynamics. If global standards such as SBTi increasingly favor durable carbon removal, companies that delay engagement with high-durability supply could face tighter availability and higher procurement costs in later phases of the net-zero transition.
Welhunt View
We believe the carbon market is entering a phase where durability, MRV robustness, and policy alignment will increasingly define credit value. As durability tiers become a central organizing principle of the removal market, the ability to bridge emerging CDR supply with evolving regional demand will become a key capability for carbon market intermediaries.
COP30: Carbon Markets Move from Framework to Execution
COP30 marked a clear shift in global climate discussions—from ambition-setting toward execution.
The focus in Belém moved beyond whether climate finance is needed, centering instead on how carbon markets and international cooperation mechanisms can effectively convert capital into measurable and verifiable emission reductions.
A key signal from COP30 was the continued acceleration of Article 6 of the Paris Agreement. Article 6.2 remains the most advanced pathway, with bilateral cooperation already being operationalized by countries such as Japan and Switzerland through ITMO transfers supported by increasingly robust MRV frameworks. These developments are laying the foundation for a more interoperable international carbon market with stronger linkages to compliance systems.
Progress under Article 6.4 has been slower, but COP30 delivered an important milestone with the approval of the first UN-sanctioned mitigation methodology. With the first issuance of A6.4ERs expected as early as 2026, the market is moving closer to a globally supervised crediting mechanism that could, over time, bridge voluntary and compliance demand.
Beyond the UN framework, COP30 also highlighted emerging efforts to reshape the global carbon market architecture. Brazil’s proposed “Open Coalition on Compliance Carbon Markets” signals a shift toward coordinated carbon pricing systems across jurisdictions. The initiative aims to align market rules, enhance transparency, and strengthen consistency in MRV systems and crediting standards, thereby reducing disparities across national compliance markets.
Under the current landscape, regulated carbon markets vary significantly in design and credit usage rules. For companies operating across jurisdictions, this creates a fragmented regulatory environment—requiring them to navigate multiple systems simultaneously, increasing compliance costs and operational complexity. The coalition reflects a growing ambition among countries to reduce these frictions through coordination, and to actively shape global carbon market rules rather than passively responding to unilateral mechanisms such as the EU’s CBAM.
These developments reinforce a broader structural trend: regulated carbon markets are expected to become the primary driver of global carbon demand. According to BNEF, there are now over 80 carbon pricing systems globally, with approximately 40% already allowing the use of carbon credits—a share that continues to rise.
In this context, the voluntary carbon market (VCM) is not disappearing, but evolving. Originally viewed as a transitional mechanism, the VCM is increasingly becoming a complementary tool that supports the implementation of Article 6 and broader compliance markets. As a result, the carbon market is no longer a single system, but a structurally segmented ecosystem—where different types of credits serve different buyer needs across voluntary and regulated contexts.
At the same time, recent developments highlight an important nuance: alignment with Article 6 does not necessarily equate to high-quality carbon credits.
Criticism from organizations such as Carbon Market Watch suggests that the Article 6 framework does not inherently guarantee environmental integrity, as credit quality remains heavily dependent on host-country governance. This concern is further supported by rating agency analysis indicating that a significant portion of CORSIA Phase 1 (2024–2026) eligible credits—up to 81%—are rated “BB” or “B”, reflecting a low likelihood of delivering the claimed emission reductions.
In addition, market discussions around the Paris Agreement Crediting Mechanism (PACM) have raised concerns that a substantial share of A6.4 credits may originate from the transition of legacy CDM projects. Given longstanding criticisms of CDM credit quality, some market participants question whether A6.4 represents a fundamental improvement, or a continuation of existing structural weaknesses.
These dynamics suggest that while Article 6.2 and 6.4 represent important progress at the policy level, quality differentiation will remain a critical factor at the market level. Market participants should avoid assuming that Article 6-aligned credits are inherently high-quality, and instead continue to rely on independent assessment frameworks and rigorous due diligence.
At the same time, it is important to recognize that Article 6-aligned credits are already demonstrating stronger pricing signals in the market, reflecting their policy relevance and potential compliance linkage.
Welhunt View
We believe COP30 marks the beginning of a policy-integrated carbon market, where compliance systems, international cooperation mechanisms, and voluntary markets are becoming increasingly interconnected.
In this evolving landscape, the carbon market is shifting from a single, voluntary-driven system toward a structurally segmented ecosystem shaped by policy alignment, regulatory demand, and buyer-specific needs.
While Article 6 will play a central role in shaping future market architecture, quality and credibility will remain the key differentiators. The ability to navigate the gap between policy alignment, credit integrity, and pricing signals will define competitive advantage in the next phase of carbon market development.
Verra Steps Up Integrity Reviews in China AFOLU Market
Verra’s recent enforcement actions against multiple China-based AFOLU projects mark a structural shift in how integrity is defined and enforced within the voluntary carbon market (VCM).
While earlier scrutiny focused primarily on methodological robustness—such as additionality, baselines, and quantification—the current wave of actions signals a move upstream. Integrity is no longer assessed solely at the level of carbon accounting, but increasingly at the level of legal validity, governance, and project authorization.
Following allegations of falsified or invalid government approval documents, Verra canceled four AFOLU projects and required developers to replace prior Buffer Pool contributions with market-eligible credits. Enhanced quality reviews have also been initiated across 35 active projects, alongside independent audits of previously withdrawn projects that had issued significant volumes of VCUs. Validation and Verification Bodies (VVBs) have been asked to provide additional evidence confirming the legitimacy of original government approvals.
This escalation reflects a broader redefinition of quality in the VCM. Carbon credit integrity is no longer determined solely by environmental performance, but increasingly by the credibility of underlying legal and institutional frameworks.
At the same time, these developments expose structural weaknesses in the current verification system. Registries have historically relied heavily on VVBs to validate project documentation and ensure integrity. However, recent incidents suggest that this layer of oversight may not be sufficiently robust—particularly in verifying legal and administrative foundations such as host-country approvals.
In response, two potential shifts are emerging. Registries may begin to engage more directly with host-country authorities to verify project legitimacy, reducing reliance on third-party verification alone. At the same time, oversight of VVBs is likely to tighten, with performance-based monitoring frameworks, public disclosure, and potential sanctions for underperforming entities.
As a result, the market is entering a phase of structural segmentation. Credits are becoming differentiated not only by methodology, but by jurisdictional risk, governance quality, and alignment with emerging standards such as the ICVCM Core Carbon Principles (CCP) and Article 6 frameworks.
From a supply-demand perspective, the implications are significant—particularly in Asia. China has historically been a major source of cost-competitive AFOLU credits, especially ARR projects priced around US$5/t, which have been widely adopted by buyers seeking scalable nature-based removals under budget constraints.
However, increased scrutiny is likely to disrupt this dynamic. On the supply side, the availability of low-cost ARR credits may tighten as projects face higher verification thresholds. On the demand side, buyers may become more cautious toward lower-priced credits, given heightened integrity risks.
This could lead to a near-term reallocation of demand—away from low-cost ARR and toward higher-integrity nature-based removals—potentially accompanied by upward pressure on pricing and buyer budget expectations.
For buyers, the immediate compliance impact remains limited, with no current indication of retroactive enforcement on retired credits. However, portfolio-level risks are increasing. Legacy credits—particularly those from higher-risk jurisdictions or weaker governance frameworks—may face growing scrutiny, creating both reputational and valuation challenges.
For market participants, the implications are clear. Due diligence must extend beyond methodology and into legal robustness, host-country governance, and long-term policy alignment. At the same time, access to high-integrity supply—particularly CCP-aligned or Article 6-compatible credits—will become increasingly competitive.
Welhunt View
We believe the VCM is entering a phase where integrity is no longer a differentiator, but a prerequisite—and increasingly, a pricing variable.
As the market reprices carbon credits based on legal robustness and governance quality, the ability to identify, access, and structure high-integrity supply will define competitive advantage in the next phase of market evolution.
EU’s 5% Signal: Room for Growth in High Quality Credits
The EU’s agreement on a 90% emissions reduction target by 2040, including an allowance for up to 5% of reductions to be met with international carbon credits, sends an important demand signal to the market. Even though the EU has not yet spelled out detailed quality criteria, simply confirming that credits can play a limited role in the 2040 framework is enough to boost confidence among developers, host countries, and intermediaries that compliant demand will grow.
This 5% window matters less for its absolute size and more for what it represents: a major jurisdiction formally recognizing that international credits will remain part of the climate toolbox alongside domestic abatement. That endorsement can help unlock new project pipelines, encourage governments to clarify Article 6 procedures, and accelerate financial commitments into high integrity mitigation activities. As expectations around integrity tighten from buyers, standards bodies, and civil society, this additional policy backed demand is likely to favor credits that can demonstrate strong governance and transparency, even if the EU has not yet codified specific filters.
Indonesia’s COP30 experience and the SBTi Corporate Net Zero Standard v2 draft both sit within this broader shift. Indonesia’s success in securing substantial carbon credit commitments showcases how governments are racing to capture opportunity as demand signals strengthen, while also highlighting that reputational and regulatory scrutiny will decide which parts of that supply are investable. Meanwhile, SBTi’s draft approach, encouraging companies to focus on deep internal reductions while still recognizing a role for high quality credits, aligns with the EU’s message that credits are not going away, but will be used more selectively.
From Welhunt’s perspective, the implication is clear: policy driven growth in demand, led by signals like the EU’s 5% allowance, is creating a larger but more discriminating market. Traders who can secure reliable supply, structure long term offtakes, and help clients navigate evolving expectations will be best positioned to capture the upside of this next phase in carbon market development.
CORSIA Credit Auctions Reflect Growing Urgency—and Opportunity—for Carbon Traders
The rising benchmark prices and the increasing structuring of procurement events point to a maturing and increasingly transparent market for CORSIA-eligible carbon credits. For commodity traders like Welhunt, these developments are not just milestones—they represent a shifting market landscape that opens up meaningful trading, offtake, and hedging opportunities.
The growing demand is clearly reflected in auction price trends: the average clearing price of CORSIA-eligible units rose from $21.70/ton in Q1 2025 to $22.55/ton in Q3, signaling growing urgency among compliance buyers. This upward pressure is further amplified by regulatory shifts.
Countries like the UK and France are moving to incorporate CORSIA into domestic law, increasing pressure on their national airlines to comply—or face penalties. This trend marks a new era of accountability and compliance-driven demand in the aviation sector.
However, supply is not keeping pace. According to the MSCI CORSIA Market Outlook Report, Phase 1 could face a supply shortfall ranging from 12 to 64 million tons (MtCO2e). As a result, MSCI models project that prices may rise significantly—anywhere between US$26 to US$63 per ton depending on the scenario.
In response to tightening supply and rising spot prices, more buyers are turning to forward contracts and guaranteed offtake agreements to secure future delivery at competitive prices. This shift not only stabilizes procurement strategies for airlines but also creates a structured, longer-term demand outlook for developers and traders alike.
As a proactive VCM trading firm, Welhunt continues to support clients by sharing market insights and identifying optimal procurement windows. Our team has successfully helped airline clients secure CORSIA-eligible emission units (CEEUs), both in the spot and forward markets, even amid tightening supply.
We believe the CORSIA market is transitioning from speculative to strategic, and those with a deep understanding of both policy signals and market dynamics will be best positioned to lead.