Search Climate Insights Directory

The document examines the implementation of REDD+ environmental safeguards, noting that while the 2013 Warsaw Framework makes safeguard information a condition for results-based payments, the broad nature of these guidelines allows for significant national discretion. It proposes using systematic gap analyses of national policies, laws, and regulations to improve the effectiveness of safeguards for protecting natural forests and biodiversity.

The document examines the fragmentation of social and environmental standards across UNFCCC instruments, including the CDM, REDD+, NAMAs, GCF, and AF. It finds that while some funds like the GCF and AF have robust safeguard policies, others like the CDM and NAMAs lack mandatory monitoring, universal guidelines for stakeholder consultation, or formal redress mechanisms. The author recommends that the Paris climate treaty explicitly mandate the protection of human rights and establish a centralized UNFCCC accountability mechanism and safeguards system to ensure climate actions do not cause adverse social or environmental impacts.

The Green Climate Fund (GCF) Board met in March 2015 to finalize key operational frameworks. The Board accredited seven entities, including the Asian Development Bank and UNDP, and adopted a Gender Policy and Action Plan (2015–2017). It established financial terms for grants and concessional loans, including a distinction between high and low concessionality for the public sector. The Board also approved the terms of reference for an independent Technical Advisory Panel and a Policy on Ethics and Conflicts of Interest. Discussions continued on the Private Sector Facility and the Initial Resource Mobilization process, with a target for 50% of Berlin pledges to be signed by April 30, 2015.

The GCF Secretariat report for mid-March to mid-June 2015 details progress in accreditation, readiness support, and the development of a project pipeline. It highlights the achievement of the Fund's effectiveness threshold with approximately US$ 5.47 billion in contributions and the review of 76 public sector concept notes requesting US$ 3.4 billion. The report also outlines the activities of the Private Sector Facility (PSF), including the review of 48 potential project ideas totaling US$ 3.1 billion, and the Secretariat's engagement with UNFCCC thematic bodies and other climate funds to ensure policy coherence.

The Green Climate Fund is developing a template accreditation master agreement (AMA) to formalize legal arrangements with accredited entities, utilizing a 'fit-for-purpose' approach that tailors conditions to an entity's specific accreditation scope. The draft incorporates existing Fund policies on fiduciary standards, environmental and social safeguards, and gender, while using placeholders for pending policies on fees and fraud. Consultations with entities accredited under decision B.09/07 have highlighted concerns regarding compliance and fees, with the Secretariat planning to circulate a discussion draft in June 2015 and conduct face-to-face meetings in July 2015.

The Green Climate Fund (GCF) is establishing a monitoring and accountability framework for its accredited entities (AEs). The framework focuses on two main pillars: monitoring compliance with fiduciary, environmental, social, and gender standards, and monitoring project implementation performance. Accreditation will be valid for a fixed term of five years or less, with a renewal process based on compliance and performance records. Monitoring includes annual AE self-assessments, mid-term Secretariat missions, and a second-level monitoring system using web-based tools. The framework introduces a 'watch list' for entities showing 'red lights' such as repeated reporting failures, with remedies ranging from readiness support to the potential withdrawal of accreditation. Local monitoring will be supported by National Designated Authorities (NDAs), local agents, and civil society organizations.

The report examines how international law can address the systemic discrimination women face in forest tenure, which risks being exacerbated by REDD+. It provides a typology of relevant rights—including land tenure, gender-specific, procedural, FPIC, and environmental rights—and analyzes how these can be leveraged within the UNFCCC and World Bank's FCPF frameworks to ensure women are recognized as key stakeholders and rights-holders.

Carbon Market Watch argues that while carbon markets can be useful for high-cost emission reduction sectors, they must not substitute for domestic action or lead to the lock-in of high-carbon infrastructure. The organization emphasizes the necessity of an all-encompassing international accounting framework to prevent double counting and calls for the integration of social and environmental safeguards, including a grievance mechanism for the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM).

The 10th GCF Board meeting resulted in the accreditation of 13 new entities, including the World Bank and Deutsche Bank, despite civil society opposition. The Board approved a US$200 million pilot for Enhanced Direct Access, alongside other pilots for MSMEs and resource mobilization. Additionally, US$2.5 million was allocated for readiness support in nine countries, and the Fund's total signed contributions reached US$5.47 billion.

The Green Climate Fund reached operational effectiveness in May 2015 after securing signed contribution agreements totaling US$ 5.47 billion, exceeding the 50 per cent threshold of its US$ 10 billion in pledges. The Fund has accredited seven initial entities and is implementing a Readiness and Preparatory Support Programme to assist over 120 developing countries in nominating national designated authorities and developing climate strategies. It has also established initial investment, risk management, and results management frameworks to begin funding mitigation and adaptation projects by its third meeting in 2015.

The document reports on a side event held during COP20 in Lima, where experts and community representatives argued that the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) lacks sufficient social safeguards and sustainable development criteria. Presenters highlighted specific hydroelectric projects in Guatemala and Panama where the absence of free, prior, and informed consent led to human rights violations and loss of life. The event called for the integration of international human rights law into climate policies and the establishment of effective appeals procedures and procedural regulations to protect vulnerable communities and environmental defenders.

The document details a discussion on the failure of Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) projects to provide sustainable development, highlighting human rights violations and the lack of social safeguards. It specifically cites the Reliance Sasan Ultra Mega Power Plant in India for violating additionality and stakeholder consultation rules, and coal mining in Colombia for causing coercive displacement and killings. The report emphasizes the urgent need for a grievance mechanism within the CDM and introduces the CDM Benefit Tracker to monitor discrepancies between promised and actual project benefits in India.

The document contends that the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) lacks the necessary environmental and social standards to be integrated into results-based climate finance. It highlights that many CDM projects fail to produce real emission reductions due to a lack of additionality and have caused negative impacts on local communities, including human rights violations. The author argues that the Green Climate Fund (GCF) should not purchase stranded offset credits from existing CDM projects, as this would contradict the GCF's mandate for new and additional financial resources and its own interim environmental and social safeguards, which require stakeholder participation and grievance mechanisms that the CDM lacks.

The document argues that the CDM, as a pure offsetting mechanism, often fails to deliver real emission reductions and lacks sufficient social safeguards. It proposes a fundamental overhaul of the CDM's modalities and procedures, focusing on achieving net atmospheric benefits, strengthening additionality testing, shortening crediting periods, and enhancing civil society participation and grievance mechanisms. It also calls for greater transparency from Designated National Authorities (DNAs), stricter eligibility and conduct rules for the CDM Executive Board, and the introduction of liability rules for Designated Operational Entities (DOEs) to prevent conflicts of interest.

Carbon Market Watch asserts that the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) cannot be accredited for Green Climate Fund (GCF) finance because it fails to meet GCF's mandates for new financial resources and lacks the necessary environmental and social risk management systems, including grievance mechanisms.

The document argues that success at COP20 in Lima depends on rich nations delivering climate finance, specifically filling the Green Climate Fund, which has only seen "USD 2.3 billion in pledges" despite a "USD 100 billion a year by 2020" goal. It emphasizes the need for an international accounting framework to prevent "double counting" and ensure that only countries with "stringent targets" can access carbon markets to avoid the "hot air" issues seen under the Kyoto Protocol. The author calls for the accounting framework to be embedded in the new climate treaty separately from the Framework for Various Approaches (FVA) and highlights the need to streamline human rights safeguards for the CDM, REDD+, and Green Climate Fund.

The Green Climate Fund Secretariat has developed proposed guidelines for a 'fit-for-purpose' accreditation approach that scales fiduciary and environmental and social safeguard (ESS) requirements based on the nature and risk of proposed activities. To ensure coherence with other institutions, the Secretariat conducted a gap analysis comparing the Fund's standards with those of the Adaptation Fund, Global Environment Facility, and EU DEVCO, as well as an assessment of private sector best practices in consultation with the Private Sector Advisory Group.

The African Caucus warns the World Bank against ignoring its 'Stand-alone policy for Indigenous peoples' in Africa due to government objections to the term 'Indigenous', noting that the term is widely accepted by African regional bodies and national courts. The Caucus also criticizes the 'Billion Dollar Map' project—a $1 billion initiative to map Africa's mineral resources—for its lack of transparency and failure to include Indigenous representatives or mark traditional lands, which could lead to environmental degradation and social conflict.

The document explains the various safeguard frameworks governing REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation), specifically those from the UNFCCC, UN-REDD, REDD+ SES, and the World Bank's FCPF. It highlights the risks of displacement and loss of land rights, the importance of Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC), and the challenges of translating international guidelines into binding national policies. It provides practical guidance for communities to engage in national safeguard development and advocate for their rights.

Friends of the Earth expresses concern that EU-U.S. trade negotiations may weaken health and environmental safeguards, particularly concerning food safety, GM crops, and chemical regulations. The organization calls for the blocking of the Keystone XL pipeline and the implementation of the EU's Fuel Quality Directive to prevent the proliferation of tar sands. Additionally, it criticizes the 'EU 2030 package' as inadequate and argues that leaders are pursuing a corporate-driven agenda of deregulation rather than investing in energy efficiency and community-owned renewables.