I3: Transparency and accountability mechanisms in place. Ensuring transparency and accountability is crucial for the successful implementation of policies relating to ERCs. Governments can achieve this by implementing regular public reporting of ERC activities and results as they relate to the state, conducting stakeholder engagement for key policy developments, and establishing mechanisms to provide accountability to the public and ERC market participants. This approach fosters trust and confidence in the ERC ecosystem, which is vital for its growth and development.
Guideposts for best practice | ||
|---|---|---|
Sequencing for roadmap | ||
| ||
| Impact | Medium–A transparent and accountable institutional setup which collaborates intimately with stakeholders will enable investors to take a longer-term view of resourcing and funding | Phase 3: Enabling long-term sustainability of the ERC ecosystem |
| Resources needed | High–Comprehensive T&A mechanism requires full buy -in from all stakeholders involved and can be hard to measure its success, one weak link within the institution can compromise the effort | |
Key activities have been observed in leading markets around the world, and taking from non-voluntary or ERC executions but also for compliance-based policies, to establish transparency and accountability mechanisms:
Mechanisms | Role of mandate | Examples |
|---|---|---|
| Public consultations on policies | Chance for stakeholders to review and understand the rationale behind a planned policy for a carbon crediting system to increase public confidence. | South Korea. ETS requires public consultation on proposed changes for use of offsets or distribution of allowances. Fiji. Fiji Government developed national public consultation and engagement requirement and framework for engaging the public in policy creation, which was followed by the creation of Climate Change Act 2021. |
| Regular reporting | Regular reporting by governments in carbon market registries involves publishing transparent and accessible carbon credit information on emission reduction projects. | Australia. CER publishes data on a monthly basis for project registration, issuance, and transaction activity in its registry, allowing for public access to track offset project activity.1 California. CARB publishes data on participants’ compliance instruments, offset credits, and facility emissions, as well as program documents, auction results, and more on the agency's website on a quarterly basis.2 |
| Safeguard integrity of data | Clear procedures and security measures (e.g., access control, audit trails, encryption, back-ups, etc.,) for data verification and quality control of data maintain credibility of data published in registry systems. | EU. EU ETS registry uses state-of-the-art encryption and access control technology to ensure that only authorized users can access the system. Audit trails are also used to record all transfers and usage of allowances. |
| Complaint mechanisms | Mechanisms in place for complaint handling for dissatisfaction with agency's services. | Australia. CER outlines complaint management system, including how to file complaints, complaint handling processes and timelines for response, and external review options if a complainant is dissatisfied with the handling of complaint.3 |
Footnote 1: Carbon Markets
Footnote 2: ARB Offset Credit Issuance
Footnote 3: Australia CER Complaints Handling Policy