Strengthening CORSIA with Confidence Tools
In mid-July 2025, two of the world’s leading carbon crediting bodies unveiled coordinated moves that could reshape confidence in aviation carbon markets. Verra and Gold Standard introduced new insurance frameworks that directly address long-standing political risks associated with double counting in the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation, or CORSIA.
While this may seem like a technical development, it marks a deeper evolution in how voluntary and compliance carbon markets are converging — and in how emerging instruments are maturing to meet real-world scrutiny.
CORSIA at a Turning Point
CORSIA, established in 2016 by the International Civil Aviation Organization, was always an ambitious project. It aims to ensure that the growth of international civil aviation does not result in net increases in carbon emissions.
The scheme has been rolled out in three phases: a pilot (2021–2023), a voluntary first phase (2024–2026), and a mandatory second phase starting in 2027. What makes CORSIA unique is that it enables countries and airlines to use market-based offsetting to meet climate obligations. But with that flexibility comes the need for trust, transparency and credible safeguards — especially around the risk of “double counting” emission reductions.
Double counting occurs when both the host country and the credit buyer claim the same emission reduction. To prevent this, CORSIA requires all eligible credits to be accompanied by a Letter of Authorization, or LoA, under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement. The LoA confirms that the host country will not count the reductions toward its own national targets.
However, the political reality is more complex. Countries can revise or even revoke these authorizations, reintroducing the very risk that the system is designed to avoid.
Insurance as a Trust Mechanism
To navigate this uncertain terrain, Verra and Gold Standard have introduced tailored insurance frameworks — a quiet but potent innovation. These insurance instruments provide a financial or credit-based buffer in the event that an LoA is reversed or invalidated. In doing so, they help stabilize trust across an otherwise fragile market interface.
Verra’s draft criteria, released on July 16, focus on Verified Carbon Units issued since 2021. Only those with an Article 6 label are considered eligible. Importantly, the credits must either have completed a corresponding adjustment or be backed by a financial guarantee from an insurer committed to replacing credits in the event of double claiming.
The insurance must offer more than just a payout — it must account for market price shifts, remain callable beyond the host country’s reporting window, and come from independent providers with strong credit ratings. It also mandates ongoing disclosure from insurers about claims and coverage levels.
Gold Standard’s Parallel Model
The very next day, Gold Standard launched its own assessment framework for similar insurance-backed credit eligibility — specific to the first phase of CORSIA. The emphasis here is on project developer protection. If credits are disqualified due to double counting, the insurer must either deliver equivalent replacement units or provide a cash payout aligned with current market values.
The framework also assigns operational oversight to a Third Party Administrator. This administrator manages procurement or retirement of replacement credits and ensures that insurance claims are fulfilled within defined timelines. Gold Standard’s move to appoint Howden Group as the assessment manager adds an experienced global intermediary to the process, signaling a desire for commercial-scale credibility.
A Quiet Shift Toward Systemic Resilience
While these developments may seem confined to technical corners of the carbon market, they suggest a broader maturation of climate finance tools. The voluntary carbon market — often criticized for opacity — is showing signs of aligning more closely with compliance regimes. The insurance frameworks launched this month reflect an understanding that carbon markets, to be effective, must integrate financial risk tools familiar to institutional actors.
What emerges is not just a response to criticism, but a signal of confidence-building. These mechanisms serve to de-risk market entry for more conservative buyers, especially aviation companies under pressure to meet net-zero targets with robust compliance pathways.
Lessons for Other Sectors
The lessons here stretch beyond aviation. Any sector planning to rely on market-based mechanisms for emissions management — including maritime and road transport — should watch this development closely.
As more industries adopt Article 6-aligned credits, the need for instruments that anticipate geopolitical and regulatory shifts will only grow. Insurance-backed carbon credits may become a norm, not an exception, for entities that operate across borders and timelines where climate policy is in flux.
Conclusion: The Market Learns to Protect Itself
The dual announcements from Verra and Gold Standard are a reminder that market mechanisms do not stand still. They evolve — especially when foundational trust is at stake.
Insurance may not be the most visible lever in climate finance, but it is emerging as one of the most important. With robust frameworks now supporting CORSIA credits, the path forward for carbon market participants — especially in aviation — is clearer, less risky, and more resilient.
For those in the business of advancing sustainable transport, these moves reflect a deeper truth: as ambition scales, so must the tools that support it.
Be part of the global conversation on decarbonising flight.
Aviation Carbon 2025 registration is open – reserve your spot now.