{"id":9965,"date":"2026-05-20T15:37:51","date_gmt":"2026-05-20T19:37:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.fundamentalanalytics.com\/?p=9965"},"modified":"2026-05-21T15:43:58","modified_gmt":"2026-05-21T19:43:58","slug":"carbon-market-news-roundup-22","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.fundamentalanalytics.com\/pt\/carbon-market-news-roundup-22\/","title":{"rendered":"Carbon Market News Roundup"},"content":{"rendered":"

Welcome to the latest edition of the Carbon Market News Roundup, our bi-weekly briefing on the evolving landscape of global carbon markets and climate-related regulation<\/strong>.\u00a0<\/span>Our previous issues, along with the rest of our commentaries, may be read\u00a0here<\/a>.<\/p>\n

In this issue, we examine how the EU ETS is entering a critical review phase, as the European Commission seeks to preserve the integrity of the carbon market while responding to industrial competitiveness concerns through targeted compensation schemes, possible adjustments to the supply trajectory, and debates over aviation and maritime coverage. At the same time, the maritime sector remains caught between regulatory momentum and implementation uncertainty, with divisions over the IMO Net-Zero Framework, growing scrutiny from U.S. authorities, and European shipowners calling for ETS revenues to support the production of green marine fuels. In parallel, CBAM is beginning to generate sharper sectoral and regional tensions, as European farmers, Western Balkan electricity exporters, Ukrainian steel producers, and Asian steel mills confront rising carbon-cost exposure, data challenges, and shifting trade flows. Meanwhile, the voluntary carbon market continues to move toward a more selective and policy-linked phase, where limited use of high-quality credits, Article 6 developments in Asia-Pacific, corporate decarbonization partnerships, and a recalibrated demand environment are reshaping expectations around market scale, integrity, and long-term value.<\/p>\n

EU ETS – Regulations Updates & EUA Price Movement<\/strong><\/h3>\n

EU Approves State Plans to Compensate Companies for Carbon Pricing Costs to Keep them from Relocating<\/a><\/p>\n

Mark Segal,\u00a0ESG Today<\/em><\/p>\n

EU will not use international credits to comply with its ETS -top official<\/a><\/p>\n

Rebecca Gualandi,\u00a0Carbon Pulse<\/em><\/p>\n

EU to slow pace of ETS to meet 2040 climate goals<\/a><\/p>\n

Kiara Campagne Nieva,\u00a0Argus Media<\/em><\/p>\n

EU weighs extending carbon market to flights beyond Europe<\/a><\/p>\n

Nina Chestney and Susanna Twidale,\u00a0Reuters<\/em><\/p>\n

The European Commission\u2019s recent decisions show a clear effort to balance EU ETS climate ambition with industrial competitiveness concerns<\/strong>.\u00a0First, the Commission approved Austrian and Spanish state aid schemes to compensate energy-intensive companies for higher electricity costs linked to ETS carbon pricing, aiming to reduce the risk of carbon leakage and industrial relocation outside the EU. Austria\u2019s scheme, worth up to \u20ac900 million, will refund up to 75% of indirect ETS costs while requiring companies to invest at least 80% of the aid into energy efficiency or decarbonization measures. Spain\u2019s amended scheme expands eligible sectors and raises the maximum aid intensity from 75% to 80% of indirect emissions costs.\u00a0In parallel, EU officials have confirmed that international credits will not be used directly for ETS compliance<\/strong>,\u00a0preserving the integrity of the EU carbon market and avoiding a return to earlier mechanisms that allowed external offsets to count toward compliance obligations.<\/p>\n

The upcoming EU ETS review is also expected to reshape the market\u2019s long-term supply trajectory<\/strong>.<\/span>\u00a0The European Commission is considering slowing the pace at which the ETS cap declines in order to align the system with the EU\u2019s 2040 climate target rather than the current 2030 pathway, which would mean allowances continue to be issued into the 2040s instead of reaching zero by 2039. This would imply a lower linear reduction factor, potential reforms to the Market Stability Reserve, and greater scrutiny of how member states spend ETS revenues, particularly as only a small share has historically supported industrial decarbonization. The review may also affect the maritime and aviation sectors, including a possible extension to smaller vessels and changes to aviation coverage.\u00a0In aviation, the Commission is considering extending the ETS to international flights departing the EU<\/strong>,\u00a0arguing that this would ensure fairer treatment across operators and better reflect the sector\u2019s emissions. However, such a move could face resistance from trade partners and would reopen the debate over the relationship between the EU ETS and CORSIA, especially given concerns that the UN offsetting scheme may not deliver sufficient emissions reductions.<\/p>\n

Maritime & Shipping Updates<\/strong><\/h3>\n

A New Front in Shipping\u2019s Climate Battle: The Federal Maritime Commission<\/a><\/p>\n

Sean Pribyl and Michael Amy,\u00a0gCaptain<\/em><\/p>\n

Negotiations signal progress but uncertainty remains on the Net-Zero Framework<\/a><\/p>\n

Global Maritime Forum<\/em><\/p>\n

European Shipowners Urge ETS Revenues be invested in Green Fuels Production<\/a><\/p>\n

Ship & Bunker News\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

Crunch looming for Europe\u2019s shortsea traders<\/a><\/p>\n

Nick Savvides,\u00a0Seatrade Maritime News<\/em><\/p>\n

The maritime decarbonization debate is becoming increasingly shaped by regulatory uncertainty and diverging institutional approaches<\/strong>.\u00a0The Federal Maritime Commission\u2019s participation at IMO MEPC 84 marks a notable shift in U.S. maritime policy, as the agency has historically focused on commercial ocean transport rather than international climate negotiations. Its opposition to the IMO Net-Zero Framework, framed as a potential burden on U.S. shippers and vessels, signals that international environmental measures affecting U.S. trade may increasingly be assessed through the lens of \u201cunfavorable conditions\u201d under U.S. maritime law.\u00a0This could expose foreign carriers and maritime stakeholders to closer scrutiny over environmental surcharges, cost allocation, and compliance practices<\/strong>.\u00a0At the IMO level, negotiations on the Net-Zero Framework continued without a formal agreement, but a majority of countries still expressed support for the framework as a basis for further talks. The Global Maritime Forum noted that the framework remains important because it could provide clearer demand signals for zero- and near-zero-emission fuels, generate transition funding, and support lower-income countries, even as a smaller group of states continues to oppose the proposal and no alternative has yet gained broad support.<\/p>\n

At the European level, shipowners are pressing for EU ETS revenues from shipping to be redirected toward clean marine fuel production<\/strong>,\u00a0arguing that the sector\u2019s roughly \u20ac9 billion annual contribution should help scale supply and narrow the price gap with conventional fuels. The European Community Shipowners\u2019 Associations also highlighted the mismatch between European demand and fuel availability, noting that Europe produces only a small share of global sustainable fuels and that even less is allocated to maritime use, despite European shipowners representing a large share of the global orderbook for sustainable-fuel-capable vessels. At the same time, shortsea operators face a more immediate compliance and fleet-renewal challenge as the European Commission considers extending EU ETS coverage to vessels above 400 GT and below 5,000 GT by 2027 or 2028. While this could reduce distortions between vessels currently inside and outside the ETS,\u00a0the aging and fragmented shortsea fleet may struggle to modernize, particularly because many operators run small fleets with limited access to affordable financing<\/strong>.\u00a0Without sufficient newbuilding capacity and financial support, stricter carbon rules could accelerate pressure on smaller operators or push older vessels into less regulated markets.<\/p>\n

EU CBAM Updates<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Copa Cogeca: CBAM could cost EU farmers \u20ac820m in 2026<\/a><\/p>\n

Aisling O’Brien,\u00a0Agriland<\/em><\/p>\n

Western Balkans request earlier exemption of electricity from CBAM<\/a><\/p>\n

Igor Todorovi\u0107,\u00a0Balkan Green Energy News<\/em><\/p>\n

EU lawmakers call for special CBAM treatment for Ukraine amid war-related challenges<\/a><\/p>\n

SteelOrbis<\/em><\/p>\n

Asian Steel Mills step up CBAM compliance as carbon costs reshape EU trade flows<\/a><\/p>\n

Hellenic Shipping News Worldwide<\/em><\/p>\n

CBAM\u2019s implementation is drawing growing concern from sectors and regions exposed to higher input costs and cross-border power trade disruptions.\u00a0Copa-Cogeca warned that CBAM could significantly increase fertiliser costs for European farmers, estimating a direct cost of around \u20ac820 million in 2026, rising to \u20ac3.4 billion by 2034, with the total burden potentially reaching \u20ac39 billion over seven years if EU fertiliser producers align prices upward. The group argues that including fertilisers in CBAM creates a structural imbalance for farmers, whose input costs are increasingly exposed to carbon-related charges while agricultural output prices remain set by global markets, and has called for CBAM\u2019s suspension as well as clarity on how revenues will be redistributed. In parallel, Montenegro, Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo and North Macedonia have asked the EU to adjust CBAM rules for electricity, warning that the mechanism has already weakened EU buyer interest in electricity from the region, including renewable power.\u00a0They are seeking earlier exemption from CBAM where progress on EU electricity market integration is verified,\u00a0as well as more flexible deadlines, carbon pricing arrangements, and recognition of power purchase agreements and guarantees of origin as proof of electricity origin.<\/p>\n

CBAM is also becoming a point of contention for steel exporters facing exceptional circumstances and shifting trade economics.\u00a0EU lawmakers have called on the European Commission to reconsider how CBAM applies to Ukraine, arguing that current force majeure provisions do not adequately reflect wartime constraints on decarbonization, emissions verification, and industrial competitiveness. Ukrainian steel producers have warned that CBAM-related costs could weaken their EU export position, with reports that some European customers have already cancelled orders due to expected additional carbon costs. More broadly, the debate has expanded to whether CBAM should cover more downstream products while avoiding excessive administrative burdens. At the same time, Asian steel mills are accelerating CBAM compliance as carbon costs become embedded in EU trade flows, with producers prioritizing emissions reporting, third-party verification, and lower-carbon production data to remain competitive.\u00a0The first CBAM certificate price has created a clearer carbon-cost benchmark, but uncertainty remains around verification rules and acceptable accounting methods, while tighter EU steel safeguard quotas are creating an even more immediate constraint on Asian exports.\u00a0Suppliers with verified lower emissions may increasingly gain a pricing advantage, while those relying on default values risk higher effective carbon costs and reduced competitiveness in the EU market.<\/p>\n

Voluntary Carbon Market News<\/strong><\/h3>\n

EU Banking Sector Pushes For Limited Carbon Credit Use In Recent Consultation<\/a><\/p>\n

Theodora Stankova,\u00a0Carbon Herald<\/em><\/p>\n

Asia-Pacific carbon markets: Indonesia, China, India \u2013 where Article 6 will be shaped<\/a><\/p>\n

Andrea Maggiani,\u00a0Renewable Matter<\/em><\/p>\n

\u00a0VCM, Lenovo, and ClimeCo Collaborate to Support Operations in Saudi Arabia<\/a><\/p>\n

International Business Magazine<\/em><\/p>\n

OPINION: The carbon market that was promised has quietly recalibrated<\/a><\/p>\n

Vinod Kesava,\u00a0Quantum Commodity Intelligence<\/em><\/p>\n

The voluntary carbon market continues to face a dual narrative of environmental relevance and credibility challenges.\u00a0Recent research shows that, despite widespread concerns around over-crediting, many REDD+ forest projects have delivered tangible climate benefits, with a majority effectively reducing deforestation<\/strong>.\u00a0However, the issuance of carbon credits has significantly exceeded actual impact, in some cases by nearly an order of magnitude, contributing to a sharp loss of market confidence and a decline in overall market value. This reinforces the need for stricter methodologies, improved baselines, and more rigorous verification frameworks, with a growing consensus that fewer, higher-quality credits issued at higher prices could restore integrity without undermining the role of carbon finance in protecting critical ecosystems.<\/p>\n

At the same time, broader market dynamics point to a gradual structural evolution rather than collapse.\u00a0While the VCM remains oversupplied, with issuance consistently exceeding retirements, demand has stabilized in recent years, albeit with increased volatility and seasonal patterns<\/strong>.\u00a0Buyers are shifting toward newer, higher-integrity credits, while transparency is improving as disclosure practices strengthen and the buyer base becomes more diversified. Nonetheless, persistent concerns around credit quality, additionality, and verification continue to weigh on corporate participation, as illustrated by cautious procurement strategies and high-profile adjustments from major buyers. In response, the market is increasingly moving toward stricter standards, layered certification frameworks, and alternative approaches such as insetting, signaling a transition from a volume-driven market to one focused on credibility, traceability, and measurable impact.<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Welcome to the latest edition of the Carbon Market News Roundup, our bi-weekly briefing on the evolving landscape of global carbon markets and climate-related regulation.\u00a0Our previous issues, along with the rest of our commentaries, may be read\u00a0here. In this issue, we examine how the EU ETS is entering a critical review phase, as the European […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","ast-disable-related-posts":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"default","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"set","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-9965","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fundamentalanalytics.com\/pt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9965","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fundamentalanalytics.com\/pt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fundamentalanalytics.com\/pt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fundamentalanalytics.com\/pt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fundamentalanalytics.com\/pt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=9965"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.fundamentalanalytics.com\/pt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9965\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":9966,"href":"https:\/\/www.fundamentalanalytics.com\/pt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9965\/revisions\/9966"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fundamentalanalytics.com\/pt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9965"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fundamentalanalytics.com\/pt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9965"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fundamentalanalytics.com\/pt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9965"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}