My thoughts are focused on carbon markets today. 

Climate challenges have never been abstract for the Philippines. We live with it — through heat waves, floods, power disruptions, and coastlines slowly retreating. For us, climate risk is not a future scenario. It is a present reality.

What is new is that the world is finally putting a price on carbon. Countries with far less climate risk than ours are already earning value from forests, renewable energy and avoided emissions. The Philippines has the same — if not greater — potential. Perhaps what we lack is not ambition, but clear rules that allow serious investment to happen.

Carbon markets do not reward vulnerability. They reward credibility.

These markets are not acts of charity. They are rules-based systems built on trust. Buyers — whether governments or companies — pay only when they are confident about three things: who approves carbon credits, how emissions are counted, and whether decisions will hold over time.

We often talk about carbon markets as a list of projects: a mangrove here, a renewable plant there. Projects matter. But capital does not move project by project alone. It moves country by country.

Investors ask basic questions: Who has the authority to approve credits? How are emissions tracked nationally? Are international commitments taken seriously?

When the answers are unclear, even good projects struggle. They get discounted or passed over entirely.

This is already how global markets operate. Carbon credits are no longer judged by volume alone. They are judged by how well they fit within national systems and international rules. Fragmented governance is now seen as risk.

Under the Paris Agreement, particularly Article 6, carbon credits are not just private transactions. Once a country allows credits to be sold internationally, those credits affect its own emissions balance. That makes carbon markets a national policy issue, not just a project concern.

This is why carbon markets cannot sit outside a country’s main climate and development framework. The Philippines has begun strengthening its climate plans and emissions reporting. Carbon markets add value only when they reinforce these systems. When they operate separately, they create confusion instead of confidence.

Serious buyers today look for three things: Integrity — One ton must mean one ton.

Equity — Communities protecting carbon must benefit fairly.

Sovereignty — The country must know what it can sell and what it must keep.

Countries that understood this early built clear approval processes, unified registries, and strong links between projects and national accounting. As a result, they now attract better prices and longer-term partners — not because they are more virtuous, but because they are more credible.

A simple way to think about this is to treat a carbon credit like a land title. You can develop land, but without a clean title, no serious investor will commit.

What needs to happen now

For policymakers: Put in place a clear, unified, high-integrity governance framework for carbon markets. Align approvals, national accounting, and international commitments. Clarity reduces risk. Credibility attracts capital.

For the private sector: Invest responsibly, engage constructively, and demand clear rules. Strong governance is not a barrier to investment — it is what allows investment to scale. Carbon markets will not solve our climate challenges on their own. But governed well, they can channel capital where it is most needed and reward countries that act with discipline and trust. The opportunity is real. The work now is to get the rules right.