Search Climate Insights Directory

The interim evaluation of the I-GFLL/CliPAD IV project in Lao PDR indicates a generally successful implementation, rated as 'Level 2: successful' overall. The project is highly aligned with national policies and the needs of rural populations in Luang Prabang, Sayabouri, and Houaphan provinces. While it has successfully established an enabling environment for REDD+ and integrated women and ethnic groups, effectiveness is rated as 'moderately successful' because many village-level activities only began in 2021, making it too early to quantify total CO2 reductions. Key achievements include the creation of a Climate Change Funding Window within the Environment Protection Fund and the development of 25 Village Forest Management Plans. However, challenges remain regarding high staff turnover in government agencies, bureaucratic delays in fund disbursement, and external risks from mining concessions and infrastructure projects.

The report examines the global coffee market, highlighting the vulnerability of smallholder farmers to climate change and price volatility. It analyzes the impact of voluntary sustainability standards (VSSs), noting that while VSS-compliant production grew significantly between 2008 and 2019, it has recently faced a decline due to oversupply and a shift toward corporate sustainability programs. The document argues that sustaining the sector requires internalizing environmental costs, increasing demand for sustainable coffee in producing countries, and implementing living income reference prices to ensure fair compensation for farmers.

The IRM found that the Bio-CLIMA project in Nicaragua failed to comply with GCF safeguards regarding conflict sensitivity, human rights due diligence, and informed consultation and participation (ICP). Specifically, the project did not adequately assess recurrent violent conflicts between indigenous communities and non-indigenous settlers, nor did it conduct meaningful consultations on key project components like Peaceful Co-habitation Regime Agreements (PCRAs). The IRM warns that the current design may reward illegal land occupation and exacerbate violence. It recommends conducting a macro-level conflict sensitivity analysis, a human rights due diligence report, and a framework-level ICP process before any project activities commence.

The report highlights that forest degradation in the Brazilian Amazon—defined as the partial loss of vegetation—is a critical but neglected threat to climate goals. It asserts that degradation often exceeds deforestation in terms of annual area affected and carbon emissions, driven by selective logging, forest fires, and the edge effects of deforestation. The author argues that Brazil possesses the technical capacity to monitor this phenomenon but fails to include it in official environmental performance metrics or greenhouse gas inventories. The document calls for Brazil to integrate degradation measures into its policies and international reporting to reclaim a global leadership role in climate action.

The policy brief highlights that forest degradation in the Brazilian Amazon is a critical but overlooked driver of greenhouse gas emissions, often exceeding the impact of clear-cut deforestation. It identifies selective logging, fire, and the edge effects of deforestation as primary drivers. The author contends that while Brazil possesses the technical capacity to monitor degradation, it fails to include these emissions in national inventories or set specific reduction targets. The document calls for the integration of degradation metrics into environmental performance indicators and the application of Brazil's experience in combating deforestation to address this complex phenomenon.

The document outlines how corruption—defined as the abuse of entrusted power for private gain—can sabotage conservation projects. It analyzes three specific intervention types: Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES), carbon offset co-benefits, and benefit-sharing in Protected Areas (PA) and Other Effective area-based Conservation Measures (OECM). For each, it identifies systemic risks such as elite capture, data manipulation, and the misappropriation of funds, while proposing responses including participatory planning, independent monitoring, and the establishment of grievance mechanisms.

The document outlines how corruption—defined as the abuse of entrusted power for private gain—can sabotage sustainable livelihood projects. It provides a framework for analyzing corruption through the lens of incentive, opportunity, and rationalization. The guide is structured into three modules: Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES), carbon compensation co-benefits, and benefit sharing from protected areas (PAs) and other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs). For each, it identifies specific risks—such as elite capture, data manipulation, and the diversion of funds—and proposes corresponding responses, including the use of integrity pacts, grievance redress mechanisms, and inclusive, rights-based stakeholder engagement.

The document outlines how corruption can sabotage conservation efforts by creating opportunities for illicit private gain. It provides a framework for addressing these risks across three main intervention types: payments for ecosystem services (PES), carbon offsets, and protected areas/Other Effective area-based Conservation Measures (OECM). For each, it identifies specific corruption risks—such as elite capture, data manipulation, and the undermining of land rights—and suggests corresponding anti-corruption responses, including participatory mechanisms, transparency requirements, and independent accountability systems.

The Government of Jamaica is seeking USD 322,148.00 over 12 months to strengthen its REDD+ readiness. Building on the initial JAM-RS-003 project, this supplement focuses on establishing a National Bureau for REDD+ Management, enhancing Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification (MRV) capacity, engaging private forest landowners who own over 70% of the island's forest resources, and creating a Social Safeguard Information System (SIS). The proposal identifies critical gaps in jurisdictional control of forested lands and the lack of systematic social and gender-disaggregated data. Key deliverables include a Forest Disturbance Index for broadleaf forests and non-binding agreements with 15 private landowners.

The document outlines the complex regulatory environment of Ghana's cocoa sector, highlighting the central role of the Ghana Cocoa Board (COCOBOD) and the tensions between production targets and forest conservation. It details the hierarchy of Ghanaian law, specific primary legislation affecting land and agriculture, and the roles of various state institutions. The briefing also addresses socio-economic challenges, such as poverty and child labour, and examines international treaties and emerging sustainability standards like the Ghana Climate-Smart Cocoa Production Standard (GCSCPS) and the African Regional Standard for Sustainable Cocoa (ARS 1000).

The document examines the operationalisation of the Paris Agreement's Enhanced Transparency Framework (ETF), which mandates that all countries submit biennial transparency reports by December 31, 2024. It highlights the shift toward standardised reporting and review processes to increase accountability for Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). While the ETF aims to build trust and facilitate ambitious climate commitments, the author notes that developing countries face significant barriers in technical capacity, particularly in greenhouse gas accounting and measurement, reporting, and verification (MRV). The brief advocates for integrating climate tracking into national budgets, enhancing stakeholder engagement, and increasing capacity building for adaptation and loss and damage reporting, particularly in Africa.

The document details the re-accreditation reviews for three international entities: the Asian Development Bank (ADB), the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). All three entities are recommended for re-accreditation without conditions. ADB and EBRD are recommended for 'large' project sizes and 'high risk' (Category A/I-1) environmental and social (E&S) risk categories. UNEP is recommended for an upgrade to 'medium' project size and maintains a 'medium risk' (Category B/I-2) E&S category. The assessments cover fiduciary standards, E&S safeguards, gender policies, and the entities' overall climate portfolios, noting that all three have aligned their strategies with the Paris Agreement and GCF's 2020–2023 Strategic Plan.

The GCF has approved USD 2.73 billion in forest finance, split between REDD+ (USD 851.1 million) and JMA (USD 1.73 billion). The report highlights that these two approaches are complementary, with significant overlap in readiness and implementation phases. The GCF aims to leverage both public and private finance to scale up deforestation-free supply chains and high-quality carbon credits.

The World Resources Institute (WRI) outlines a framework of ten 'guard rails' to ensure that the voluntary use of nature-based solution (NBS) carbon credits supports the 1.5°C warming limit and protects biodiversity and human rights. The guidance distinguishes between using credits to 'counterbalance' unabated emissions—which requires a science-based reduction pathway—and using them to 'contribute' to a jurisdiction's climate mitigation. WRI emphasizes a shift from project-level to jurisdictional-scale REDD+ credits and mandates transparent reporting aligned with the Greenhouse Gas Protocol.

The document critiques the 'net zero' framework, asserting that it relies on the scientifically flawed assumption that ongoing fossil fuel emissions can be offset by carbon removals. It specifically analyzes how initiatives like ART-TREES and the Taskforce on Scaling Voluntary Carbon Markets (TSVCM) attempt to standardize and merge different types of carbon credits—avoided emissions, reduced emissions, and removals—into single, fungible assets to increase market scale. The report warns that this 'house of cards' encourages continued fossil fuel use, risks creating a 'subprime carbon' financial crisis through derivatives and speculation, and threatens the rights of Indigenous peoples through land grabbing for nature-based solutions.

The report critiques the 'net zero' framework and the expansion of carbon offset markets, asserting that they create a false equivalence between carbon removals and avoided emissions. It argues that these mechanisms serve as a 'house of cards' designed to protect stranded fossil fuel assets by providing a veneer of climate action while allowing ongoing emissions. The document specifically highlights the efforts of the Task Force on Scaling Voluntary Carbon Markets (TSVCM) and the Architecture for REDD+ Transactions (ART-TREES) to standardize and commodify different types of carbon credits to increase market volume. It concludes that the only viable path to limiting warming to 1.5°C is a rapid, just transition to renewable energy and the immediate phase-out of fossil fuels, rather than reliance on speculative carbon removal technologies or flawed offsetting schemes.

The document critiques the 'fossil bet on the future,' claiming that carbon offsets and net-zero goals serve as a 'house of cards' to maintain fossil fuel dependence. It specifically targets the amalgamation of carbon capture, emission reductions, and avoided emissions into single, fungible credit units, arguing that such mechanisms do not actually reduce atmospheric CO2 and may lead to increased warming. The report highlights the role of the Task Force on Scaling Voluntary Carbon Markets (TSVCM) and ART-TREES in standardizing these credits to facilitate financial speculation and the 're-floating' of stranded assets.

The document defines the conceptual landscape of nature-based solutions, distinguishing between general NbS, climate-specific NbCS, and adaptation-focused EbA. It argues that for these solutions to be effective and legitimate, they must be grounded in risk assessments and incorporate robust social and environmental safeguards to prevent rights violations, the commodification of nature, and ecological harm. The brief highlights the importance of three pillars—gender responsiveness, social inclusion, and biodiversity benefits—and provides global case studies demonstrating the application of EbA across various ecosystems.

The document examines the critical role of forests in climate regulation and biodiversity, noting that 420 million hectares have been lost since 1990. It analyzes the shift from failed attempts at a global forests convention to a polycentric governance system involving the UN Forum on Forests, REDD, and private sector deforestation commitments. The brief highlights the risks of carbon offsets and monoculture plantations, arguing that successful forest protection requires holistic valuation, strong political will, and the alignment of financial incentives.

Carbon Market Watch argues that Article 6.2 and 6.4 mechanisms lack a clear definition of "removals," leading to the risk of including "false solutions." The organization proposes four scientific principles for defining real removals: atmospheric GHG removal, permanent storage (at least 200-300 years), comprehensive accounting of process emissions, and a net-positive removal balance. Based on these, the document asserts that nature-based sequestration and point-source CCS do not qualify as permanent removals. It specifically critiques nature-based activities due to the impossibility of guaranteeing monitoring and liability for reversals over centuries, noting that buffer pools are inadequate. Instead, it suggests nature-based activities generate "Paris Agreement Support Units" to channel finance without allowing offset claims.