Resources

Just weeks after Gold Standard’s approval, and with early developer traction already turning into tagged supply, the approval is a meaningful milestone for Oka. Alongside new partnerships with BACX and 1089, it feels like a clear signal that insurance is moving closer to standard market infrastructure, not a side feature.

I was struck by how quickly CORSIA has moved from abstract policy to live procurement problem. Airlines are engaged, but cautious, supply is still thin, and insurance is becoming less of a nice-to-have than a practical condition for market access, project finance, and buyer confidence.

Gold Standard has approved Oka’s Corresponding Adjustment Protect after a three-month review, giving developers a recognised insurance-backed route to bring CORSIA-tagged credits to market. For a market worried about double counting and looming airline demand, that matters: it gives sellers a way to move before a corresponding adjustment has already been recorded.

We came away from New York thinking the climate conversation has changed. The rhetoric was lower, but the financial realism was higher: more talk of bankability, grid strain, insurance capacity, and carbon as something closer to an investable asset than a discretionary sustainability spend.

Oka has partnered with BACX to launch exchange-traded carbon credits with embedded invalidation cover on the Argentinian exchange. It is a sharp shift in how these products are sold: instead of asking buyers to source protection separately, the cover travels with the credit from the outset.

Oka has entered Singapore, making its climate-focused insurance products available locally through Lloyd’s Syndicate 1922. That includes cover for carbon and green credit risk across buyers, developers and lenders, in a market the company sees as increasingly important to carbon trading and wider climate finance in Asia.

Oka is moving beyond its core carbon products into green credit insurance, with new cover spanning transition project finance, green and blue bonds, sustainability-linked structures and climate-focused lending. The move is backed by the hire of James Morrell to lead credit underwriting, signalling a broader push into sustainable finance.

Gold Standard’s move matters because it pushes insurance closer to the mechanics of market access. Chris makes the simple point: supply is already under pressure, and insurance capacity should not become another avoidable bottleneck.

Quality thresholds alone will not build a functioning market. To unlock confidence and scale, the UK needs to pair stronger standards with practical risk management, clear accountability for failure, and incentives that make participation commercially worthwhile.

At the ClimateImpact Flagship Summit, I argued that carbon markets are not failing for lack of demand, but for lack of trust and bankability. In this piece, I set out why insurance matters: it can absorb key risks, make projects easier to finance, and help turn climate ambition into investable reality.

This update brings together three strands: what Stewart and I saw on the ground in Kenya, Rwanda, and South Africa, where we are starting to explore adjacent clean-energy opportunities, and the policy and demand signals making carbon markets harder to ignore. From Nigeria and CORSIA to record removals and new standard-setting, the market is moving, even if not always neatly.

After spending time with developers, communities and financial institutions across Kenya, Rwanda and South Africa, I came back with a sharper sense of what it really takes to build carbon projects on the ground. Distance flattens the picture; being there makes the value, fragility and stakes impossible to miss.

The clearest theme this quarter was that of a rebounding carbon market. Insurance kept gaining ground in CORSIA, concerns about a supply crunch became harder to ignore, and a mix of policy, target-setting, and buyer activity suggested the market may be entering a more serious phase.

The pressure is building from both sides: airline demand looks stronger than expected, while supply still faces multiple points of friction. Chris argues insurance should help relieve that strain, not become another constraint layered on top of it.

GreenBiz 2024 sharpened a tension that has been building for a while. I came away more bullish on the long-term role of carbon markets, but also more convinced that many buyers are simply not ready to move yet. This piece is about that mismatch, and why insurance can help close it.

The conversation sits at the point where climate risk stops being a side issue and starts reshaping how insurers underwrite, invest, and operate. Chris’s contribution focuses on what the sector will need to change if it wants to support cleantech at scale.

Against the backdrop of the California wildfires, Chris argues that insurance markets cannot keep relying on blunt last-resort government backstops or static pricing. As climate risk intensifies, carbon projects need underwriting that actively manages exposure over time.

What mattered most this quarter was seeing abstract progress start to convert into practical use. CAP drew media attention, DelAgua spoke publicly about using it on its biggest sale to date, and registry behaviour made the case that developers will need more than standards alone to reassure buyers.

The Article 6 agreement is a welcome development, particularly the stronger approach to accounting and transparency. But the framework sets a standard, not a safety net: buyers can still be exposed if countries fail to follow through, or if project risks surface after credits have already changed hands.

The commercial edge came from turning a market first into something buyers could actually underwrite. Insurance gave DelAgua a way to convert early LoA access into faster sales, stronger buyer confidence, and real CORSIA market share.

Insurance Post spoke with Chris Slater for a feature on the rise of carbon insurance, looking at the risks running through the carbon-credit supply chain and why demand for specialist risk transfer is growing as the market matures.

In Oka’s latest webinar, CEO Chris Slater pulls out five things project developers need to get right for CORSIA, from securing a corresponding adjustment and a workable letter of authorisation to thinking seriously about guarantees. The message from the panel is simple: rules are still settling, but waiting is the bigger risk.

As carbon insurance moves beyond niche status, the question is becoming practical rather than theoretical: when should buyers insure, what does cover actually signal, and how quickly could the US market catch up with London?

The episode gets to a familiar tension in carbon markets: most participants agree the market needs to grow, but far fewer agree on how to build confidence on the way there. Chris’s contribution focuses on why insurance is becoming one of the practical answers.

Oka has put a Lloyd’s lineslip behind Corresponding Adjustment Protect, its Article 6 policy for credits sold into compliance markets. With Apollo, Hiscox and other syndicates now supporting the cover, the move gives developers and buyers more capacity and a firmer insurance framework as CORSIA-linked demand takes shape.

As concern grows over whether enough CORSIA-eligible credits will reach the market in time, Chris argues that insurance can help loosen one of the key bottlenecks, even if political-risk requirements still slow the path to buyers.

This is a market with real demand, real risk, and nowhere near enough protection. Chris argues that the bigger problem is not product innovation, but the lack of insurance volume and market data needed to scale cover properly.

As carbon markets grow more complex, insurance is moving closer to the centre of market design. The session looks at how different policies are being used across voluntary and compliance markets, and what that means for risk management, transparency, and buyer confidence.

Climate Week NYC 2024 brought the carbon market’s mood into sharper focus. There was still real belief in CORSIA and the broader market opportunity, but it sat alongside caution about registry timing, project risk, and buyer readiness. One theme kept surfacing: insurance is moving from side conversation to core market infrastructure.

As Article 6 moves from theory into live market exposure, insurance is being treated less as a niche add-on and more as part of the infrastructure needed to manage corresponding adjustment and credit risk.

Carbon markets will not scale on intent alone. The session focused on the less glamorous but more decisive question: what kinds of infrastructure, technology, and market connectivity are actually needed to turn climate ambition into functioning markets.

CORSIA is creating real opportunity, but the path to market is still messy. The discussion focuses on the practical questions developers are now facing, from Letters of Authorisation and legal guarantees to host-country readiness, Article 6 rules, and the role of insurance in getting credits to buyers.

Carbon credits are attracting more attention just as scrutiny intensifies. The episode focuses on the uncomfortable middle ground: organisations may need the market, but they will stay cautious unless the risks around credit quality, project performance, and buyer exposure are handled better.

Two months after joining Oka’s advisory board, David Antonioli lays out his case for rethinking carbon markets. He argues they need to do more than help companies offset emissions: they should also channel capital into early-stage climate projects, with tools such as insurance helping make the market more efficient, investable and scalable.

A supply crunch is opening up a rare window for developers that can get CORSIA-ready ahead of the pack. Here, we explore the two timelines that matter - registry approval and host-country authorisation - and explain how insurance can help shrink the gap between them.

Oka and Socotra have formed a strategic partnership to scale carbon market insurance. Combining Oka’s AI capabilities with Socotra’s policy technology, the collaboration has already supported the launch of two new products in 12 months, helping bring specialist insurance infrastructure to a fast-moving global market.

Registry access now hinges not just on authorisation, but on whether the project can withstand a failed corresponding adjustment. Developers that can secure cover may reach buyers faster, protect pricing, and reduce the chance that host-country action unravels the deal.

CCarbon's interview with Zachary gets into the mechanics rather than the slogans: why Oka focuses on post-issuance credits, why insurance may work better than buffer pools for CORSIA, what an insurable LoA looks like, and how claims would actually be paid if a corresponding adjustment fails.

This quarter, the bigger story is that insurance is moving into the mechanics of CORSIA rather than sitting outside them. We also welcomed David Antonioli to the advisory board, expanded with DelAgua and Clima, and saw the White House give the VCM an unusually strong vote of confidence.

The headline opportunity is real, but so is the bottleneck. Many credits may look eligible on paper, yet far fewer are likely to make it through host-country authorisation and corresponding adjustment requirements, which is where the real scarcity, and the real pricing power, may sit.

Oka and DelAgua have launched Corresponding Adjustment Protect, a new policy meant to make Article 6 credits easier to buy and sell with confidence. It covers the risk of a host country failing to deliver the corresponding adjustment needed for CORSIA eligibility, and DelAgua is the first developer using it.

The Marsh article makes a simple point: carbon markets have lacked a serious risk-transfer layer. By shifting exposure away from buyers and blunt buffer-pool structures, insurers like Oka can help make the market easier to trust and easier to finance.

Oka has added former Verra CEO David Antonioli to its advisory board as it looks to expand across international carbon markets. He will help the company shape policy coverage as rules and market needs evolve, including its work with crediting programmes on an Article 6 route to market.

Oka has closed a $10m raise to fund its next stage of growth, with backing from existing investors, Overview Capital and new capacity partners. The money will support its Lloyd’s syndicate, day-to-day growth and a broader push to scale carbon market insurance after a run of early commercial milestones.

Quantum walks through the practical logic of Corresponding Adjustment Protect, including the specific events that trigger a loss, why the policy uses stated value, and how replacement works when an Article 6 credit loses its authorisation.

The carbon market is at an awkward juncture: vast demand remains, but trust has been shaken. Speaking to Bloomberg, Chris explains how insurance can price risk more clearly, support innovation, and give buyers a stronger backstop where credits fail.a

Airlines will need a large pool of eligible credits, but access depends on more than project quality alone. Developers now have to navigate registry approval, host-country authorisation, and corresponding adjustment risk, which is why insurance is starting to sit much closer to the centre of the transaction.

Carbon credits only become useful financial assets when buyers believe they will hold their value under stress. Insurance turns a fragile, hard-to-price asset into something institutions can underwrite, buy, and use with more conviction.

Oka has entered Australia through a partnership with Clima, marking its first move into the Australian market. The deal gives buyers access to insured carbon credits through Clima’s platform, with a simple pitch: less due diligence, more protection, and an easier route into a market many companies still find opaque.

The commercial challenge was not just getting a policy written, but getting one written in a way the market would buy. McDermott’s role sat across both sides of that equation, helping Oka stand up its platform, navigate key market introductions, and shape a product that balanced protection with real-world commerv.

Once offsets appear in filings, they stop being a side-note in sustainability reporting and start looking like an asset with visible downside. Companies will need a clearer view of reversal, over-crediting, governance, and pricing risk before those claims reach investors.

This was the quarter when the company started to look operational rather than merely promising. Lloyd’s approval, early customer wins, and a sizeable raise all gave Oka more room to move, while the wider market kept underlining the same point: buyers may need credits, but they still want risk dealt with first.

Oka has partnered with Oregon Biochar Solutions, with GECA facilitating the deal, to bring insured biochar credits to the voluntary carbon market. The pitch is straightforward: pair a fast-growing carbon removal category with invalidation cover, so buyers get a stronger signal of quality and a little less exposure if things go wrong.

Price declines have shown that evidence of quality alone is not always enough to calm corporate buyers. For developers with stronger projects, insurance can help separate genuine quality from generic claims, support better pricing, and shorten the path to sale.

Carbon markets may have long-term demand, but they will not scale on conviction alone. Chris argues that insurance is what can help pull balance sheet capital into the space and move more liquidity towards climate solutions.

Oka and Cloverly have launched insured carbon credits for the voluntary carbon market, offered through Cloverly’s platform and backed by Oka insurance. The aim is to make buying credits feel less exposed, giving enterprise buyers added protection against reversal and invalidation risk at the point of purchase.

This update looks back on a bruising year for the VCM, where the case for offsetting strengthened even as scrutiny intensified. Alongside the market backdrop, it traces how Oka spent the year building the pieces for 2024: partnerships, product development, industry recognition, and Lloyd’s approval for Syndicate 1922.

After a bruising year for market credibility, the more interesting shift was political tone. Carbon markets were treated less as a glossy climate talking point, and more as imperfect but necessary infrastructure that now needs tighter standards, better coordination, and firmer rules.

Insurance is not 'just' a tool for end-point loss. Chris describes it as part of the capital stack from the start, helping projects get off the ground, keeping credits credible after issuance, and giving buyers more confidence at the point of sale.

Oka has joined IETA, becoming the first dedicated carbon credit insurance company in the association. It is a useful signal that specialist risk protection is moving closer to the centre of the market, with insurers increasingly seen as part of how broader carbon markets mature.

Oka has been included in the ESGFinTech100, FinTech Global’s annual list of companies using technology to tackle ESG challenges in finance. The recognition reflects Oka’s push to bring insurance into carbon markets, giving buyers and sellers more financial protection against reversal and invalidation risk when projects go wrong.

Lloyd’s has granted in-principle approval for Oka syndicate 1922 to begin underwriting from 1 January 2024. Managed by Asta, the syndicate is designed to insure buyer-side carbon credit risks, helping strengthen market confidence, support investment and enable faster growth across the voluntary carbon market over time.

After a week of meetings and events across New York, I came away encouraged by how much more seriously carbon credit insurance is being taken. But the mood was hardly triumphant: doubts about quality, trust and the voluntary carbon market’s ability to scale still hung over many of the conversations.

Oka has partnered with BeZero to sharpen the data behind its carbon credit insurance. By bringing BeZero’s project assessment data into Oka’s underwriting process, the two companies aim to assess risk more accurately and give buyers more confidence in a market still short on trust.

Oka has been named to FinTech Global’s InsurTech100, an annual list of companies reshaping insurance through technology. The recognition reflects Oka’s work building carbon credit insurance and climate-focused underwriting solutions that address risk, improve confidence and support growth in an uninsured, fast-evolving global carbon market.

The value of carbon insurance is broader than post-loss protection. It can shorten diligence, shift risk to a specialist balance sheet, improve the commercial appeal of wrapped credits, and release credits that would otherwise sit idle.

This quarter made clear that demand for practical CORSIA guidance is real. Alongside the DelAgua launch, we saw strong inbound interest, published a three-part blog series, hosted our first developer webinar, and watched the market wait on ICAO’s overdue registry call, while also pushing forward with Socotra and David Antonioli.

The loudest attacks on carbon credits tend to collapse two different arguments into one: whether companies are using them honestly, and whether the underlying projects are any good. Both deserve scrutiny, but abandoning the market altogether would do little to solve the harder problem of how businesses cut residual emissions in the meantime.

Oka has partnered with Sylvera to tighten the data behind its carbon credit insurance. By combining Oka’s modelling with Sylvera’s project assessment data, the two firms aim to improve underwriting, tailor cover more precisely and give buyers more confidence in a market still struggling with trust.

A more complete CCP framework should help push buyers and programmes towards stronger standards. But the harder problem remains: even where methodology and governance look sound, individual projects can still carry risks that broad category screens do not catch.

The problem is not just that forests burn. It is that buffer pools often rely on backward-looking assumptions in a world where climate risk is moving faster than the models behind them, leaving confidence, and capital, more exposed than the market likes to admit.

Sweeping carbon-neutral language is giving way to a more disciplined framework built around evidence, thresholds, and verification. That should help clean up buyer claims, but it also makes weak internal processes and poor-quality credits much harder to hide.

Carbon credits are moving out of the margins of ESG reporting and into the core logic of investor-facing disclosure. Once companies have to explain what they are buying, how those credits are verified, and how durable they really are, weak risk controls will look much harder to defend.

Carbon-credit risk is not one problem but many. Forest projects, soil carbon, blue carbon, biochar, direct air capture, and other removal approaches all behave differently, which is exactly why buyers struggle to treat credits as interchangeable and why insurance starts to matter.

The real fault line was not nature versus technology, but whether carbon markets are willing to support the full range of removal needed for net zero. Once the draft text suggested otherwise, it exposed how fragile confidence still is around the future of engineered carbon removal.

This update was really about one thing: risk. The World Bank and IETA both pointed to growing demand for carbon credits, but also to the same brake on growth: buyer anxiety about quality and integrity. That is the backdrop against which we launched Carbon Protect.

Buffer pools are meant to safeguard permanence, but their logic is often blunt, opaque, and poorly matched to actual project risk. Buyers may end up relying on a mechanism that covers too little, prices risk badly, and weakens incentives for stronger projects and clearer market discipline.

As scrutiny of carbon credits has grown, buyers have become slower, more cautious, and more exposed when projects fail. Carbon Protect is built to change that equation by covering a defined set of project and issuance risks that can unravel a credit after purchase.

Carbon-credit transactions are hard to navigate because the market is decentralised and the underlying assets are highly variable. Brokers help close that gap by improving access to counterparties, surfacing better information, and reducing some of the quality and reputational risk that can otherwise stall deals.

Carbon credits do not arrive with a clean chain of custody. They are designed, financed, verified, issued, rated, traded, and finally retired, with the buyer often inheriting risks built up across the route to market.

Buying a carbon credit is not the same as locking in a clean environmental outcome. Between project failure, flawed accounting, fraud, cyber risk, and political disruption, there are multiple ways for a credit to stop being what the buyer thought they had purchased.

The CCPs are an important step towards standardisation but not a complete fix. Better benchmarks may help ease reputational anxiety and unlock liquidity, yet project-level complexity and asset-level risk will still need managing.

The rules matter because they pull carbon credits out of the footnotes and into formal climate-risk reporting. That raises the bar on transparency around sourcing, cost, and project details, while also increasing pressure on companies to justify how credits fit into a credible transition plan.

Carbon-credit buyers are under pressure to decarbonise without walking into reputational trouble. Strong credits share four traits: real environmental quality, positive wider impact, sound governance, and risk mitigation that gives buyers more confidence when project and issuance risks remain uneven.

Carbon credits sit at the centre of a difficult transition problem: many companies need them to deal with residual emissions, and many climate projects need them to attract capital. But the market is still immature, which means buyers have to navigate uneven standards, patchy pricing, and real quality differences.

The case for carbon-credit insurance is wider than buyer protection alone. Done properly, it can tighten project discipline, make markets easier to finance and use, and give companies more confidence that credits will support, rather than undermine, their net-zero plans.

The market is no longer short of attention or long-term demand. What it lacks is enough consistency and protection to make buyers comfortable at scale. That gap between ambition and usability is where the next phase will be won or lost.

Carbon credits have moved from fringe idea to central climate-finance tool, but the market’s plumbing has lagged behind. Demand, prices, and policy attention surged, while standards, transparency, and buyer protection remained uneven, leaving trust as the constraint on scale.

Oka has raised over $7M in seed funding led by Aquiline Technology Growth, with participation from Firstminute. The investment will help scale Oka’s carbon credit insurance offering, designed to protect buyers against invalidation and reversal risk and support confidence in the growing voluntary carbon market.

As climate risk intensifies, insurance is no longer just a back-end financial service. It helps decide what gets built, what remains insurable, and which transition technologies and projects can attract the confidence and capital needed to scale.