New Countries Endorse Singapore-Led Carbon Market Coalition Principles — But Diverse Motivations Underlie the Consensus

Nov 11

At COP30, a new milestone in carbon market governance emerged: a Singapore-led Coalition to Grow Carbon Markets announced a set of shared principles for corporate use of carbon credits, and new governments — including Canada, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Peru, Switzerland, and Zambia — formally endorsed them.

On the surface, this looks like a straightforward story of alignment: multiple jurisdictions backing a common vision for high-integrity, scaled carbon markets. In practice, the picture is more nuanced. The governments involved face very different domestic realities, market positions, and political incentives. Their understanding of what “high quality” and “integrity” mean in practice also diverges.

For investors, developers, and intermediaries, this divergence matters. The coalition’s principles may become a reference point in the market — but how they are interpreted and implemented will vary.

What the Coalition’s Principles Actually Say

The Coalition to Grow Carbon Markets’ shared principles are designed to guide corporate use of carbon credits, not just government-to-government trade. In broad terms, they assert that:

Carbon credits should be used in addition to, not instead of, direct emissions reductions.
Credits must meet high quality standards, including credible additionality, permanence, robust MRV, and social and environmental safeguards.
Carbon finance should deliver fair value and benefits to host countries and communities.
Corporate use of credits must be accompanied by transparent reporting of volumes, sources and claims.
Claims based on credit use must be accurate and not misleading.
Companies should contribute to the growth of high-integrity carbon markets, not undermine them.

By endorsing these principles, governments are effectively stating that they will support policies and regulations consistent with this framework, and encourage corporates in their jurisdictions to follow them.

Why This Endorsement Matters

The endorsement has several implications for the broader carbon market:

It signals government-level support for “integrity-first” market growth.
This is important because many debates around carbon markets have focused on whether they should exist at all. The coalition moves the discussion to how they should function.
It helps narrow, at least on paper, the fragmentation in standards.
Buyers and investors frequently cite inconsistent integrity criteria as a barrier. Shared principles provide a reference point, even if not yet legally binding.
It hints at an emerging bridge between voluntary and compliance markets.
While the principles are framed around voluntary corporate use, the fact that governments endorse them suggests they may influence domestic regulation, Article 6 strategies, and future compliance schemes.

For countries on the supply side — such as Indonesia or Peru — this means that project pipelines will increasingly need to align with these principles if they want access to premium buyers and institutional capital.

Diverging Motivations Behind a Shared Framework

Despite the common language, each endorsing country arrives with different motivations and constraints.

Canada may view the coalition as a way to align corporate decarbonisation with its national climate strategy, while leaving room for cross-border procurement.
Luxembourg, as a financial hub, likely sees a role in structuring and hosting carbon finance vehicles and green capital flows.
New Zealand brings experience in forestry and domestic emissions trading and may seek to ensure that international credits used by its corporates meet a standard consistent with domestic expectations.
Peru and Zambia, as host countries with significant Nature-Based Solutions potential, are likely focused on attracting investment and ensuring that “high integrity” does not translate into transaction barriers or loss of value.
Switzerland has been one of the most active buyers of Article 6 credits, and its endorsement reflects an interest in ensuring that corporate credit use is consistent with its own integrity standards and bilateral agreements.

These differences mean that, while the language is shared, interpretation will not be uniform. For instance, what one country accepts as robust permanence or acceptable social safeguards may be stricter or looser than another’s.

What This Means for Investors and Developers

For investors and project developers, the coalition’s principles should be seen as directional guidance, not yet as hard law — but they are unlikely to be ignored.

Key implications:

Project design and documentation will need to anticipate these expectations.
Projects that aim to serve multinational buyers or institutions in endorsing countries will be under pressure to demonstrate alignment with the principles — particularly on additionality, MRV, and co-benefits.
Corporate buyers may use the principles as a procurement filter.
Even before formal regulation, internal policies in large companies often track these kinds of frameworks. That can affect demand, pricing, and offtake conditions.
Host-country frameworks will be scrutinised.
Countries offering supply will increasingly be assessed on whether their registries, authorisation procedures, and legal systems can support high-integrity claims.
Portfolios will need to manage divergence risk.
Because interpretations vary, investors may find that credits acceptable in one jurisdiction are viewed differently in another.

In other words, aligning with the coalition principles is likely to become a commercial advantage, even if not an immediate legal requirement.

Where the Risk and Ambiguity Sit

Despite the positive signal, several issues remain unresolved:

Voluntary versus compliance status
The principles target corporate voluntary use, not formal compliance. How they will intersect with national ETSs or Article 6 usage is still unclear.
Implementation gap
Endorsement does not guarantee rapid domestic uptake. Translating high-level principles into law, guidance, and enforcement will take time, and may face domestic political resistance.
Quality is still contested
“High integrity” is not a fixed concept. Different rating agencies, initiatives and national authorities maintain their own thresholds. The coalition narrows the discourse but doesn’t settle all disputes.
Buyer behaviour is untested
It remains to be seen whether corporates will consistently pay premiums for credits that fully meet these principles, especially in cost-sensitive sectors.

For now, the coalition sets expectations; it does not eliminate market debate.

Coordination Without Uniformity

The coalition aims to coordinate, not to homogenise. It reflects a reality in markets: alignment at the level of principles, divergence at the level of practice. Over time, some degree of convergence may emerge as best practices solidify and buyers gravitate toward common standards. But in the near term, investors and developers should expect variation.

This requires actors able to operate across different jurisdictions, standards and buyer requirements, without assuming that one endorsement equals one coherent, global rulebook.

Where Masdar Arche Fits

As high-level frameworks like the Singapore-led coalition’s principles proliferate, the challenge shifts from understanding the wording to operationalising the intent. That is where intermediaries matter.

Masdar Arche works between policy and practice — helping developers design projects that anticipate integrity expectations from multiple jurisdictions, supporting investors in assessing whether credit pipelines meet emerging norms, and helping both sides navigate how host-country policy, global principles and corporate strategies interact.

The coalition’s principles show where the market is trying to go. The value, however, will accrue to those able to build and finance projects that genuinely meet those expectations, in countries where motivations and interpretations are anything but uniform.