Search Climate Insights Directory

The GCF Secretariat report for the period ending 31 July 2021 indicates that programming and implementation targets are largely on track, with 76% of the portfolio now under implementation. Key achievements include the approval of USD 1.2 billion in funding at the B.28 meeting and the adoption of the Integrated Results Management Framework (IRMF) at B.29. The Secretariat is working to diversify its private sector portfolio and improve direct access for entities. However, the Simplified Approval Process (SAP) targets are likely to remain unmet due to slow proposal development. The report also highlights the impact of COVID-19 on project expenditure and the ongoing efforts to finalize bilateral privileges and immunities agreements.

As of 31 July 2021, the GCF pipeline includes 89 funding proposals requesting USD 6.4 billion and 350 concept notes requesting USD 15.9 billion. The report details the distribution of these requests by sector, region, and theme, while also tracking the progress of the Simplified Approval Process (SAP) pilot, specific requests for proposals (RFPs) such as REDD-plus and MSME, and the status of 65 active Project Preparation Facility applications.

The report analyzes the impact of Brazilian public policies on Amazon forest protection, highlighting the success of the Action Plan for the Prevention and Control of Deforestation in the Legal Amazon (PPCDAM) and the use of real-time monitoring (DETER) in reducing deforestation between 2004 and 2012. It identifies a recent trend of increasing deforestation linked to weakened environmental governance and impunity. The author argues for a broader conservation agenda that includes monitoring forest degradation and secondary vegetation, as these are currently 'invisible' to official systems but critical for carbon sequestration and ecosystem restoration.

The REDD+ programme aims to curb carbon emissions by providing financial incentives to developing countries for protecting forestry resources. While small-scale projects in Kenya and Cambodia have successfully preserved biodiversity and created jobs, large-scale implementation has faced significant failures. In Indonesia, the programme has been undermined by the misclassification of palm oil plantations as revegetation projects, alleged double counting of credits, and the displacement of indigenous communities. Despite these issues, the document notes that REDD+ has improved forestry monitoring and kept rainforests on the global policy agenda.

The GCF's Independent Evaluation Unit (IEU) assessed four pilot RFP programmes: Enhanced Direct Access (EDA), Micro-, Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (MSME), Mobilizing Funds at Scale (MFS), and REDD+ Results-based Payments (REDD+). The assessment concludes that while the RFPs are relevant to the GCF mandate and country needs, they have not been used effectively as a modality. Key failures include a lack of incentives for proponents, an inability to attract new accredited entities, and a project cycle that remains as complex and lengthy as the regular Proposal Appraisal Process (PAP). The REDD+ RFP was the most successful due to its tailored process and specialized expertise. The IEU recommends establishing the RFP as a formal institutional modality with standardized processes, transparent topic selection based on portfolio gap analysis, and incentives such as simplified accreditation.

The GCF Secretariat report for the first trimester of 2021 highlights a record funding approval of USD 1.2 billion at a single Board meeting (B.28) and a portfolio implementation rate of 73%. Key priorities include the 'DAE Action Plan' to increase funding for Direct Access Entities, the development of a Private Sector Strategy to catalyze adaptation finance, and the implementation of the 'GCF People Plan' to enhance institutional capacity. The report also details a long-term vision for collaboration with the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and efforts to secure privileges and immunities through a potential relationship with the United Nations.

Carbon Market Watch defends its investigation into Colombian forestry projects, arguing that these projects produce 'hot air' credits that allow fossil fuel companies to avoid paying national carbon taxes. The organization refutes Verra's claims that its methodology was flawed, asserting that multiple assessment methods—including national reference levels and Ministry of Environment estimates—confirm the overestimation of emission reductions. It further contends that Verra's claims regarding community benefits lack transparency and that current auditing processes have failed to ensure environmental integrity.

The report analyzes the Mataven and Kaliawiri REDD+ projects in Colombia, finding they generated approximately 21 million more carbon credits than justified by official government reference values. These 'hot air' credits were used by companies, primarily Primax Colombia SAS, to avoid paying the national carbon tax, leading to an estimated US$62 million in potential forgone tax revenues. The document attributes this to a system failure involving conflicts of interest for verification bodies, lack of stringency from standards like Verra (VCS) and ProClima, and insufficient enforcement by the Colombian Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development.

A policy brief by Carbon Market Watch analyzing how the Matavén and Kaliawiri REDD+ projects in Colombia used artificially high baselines to generate millions of excess carbon credits. These credits were used by companies, primarily Primax Colombia SAS, to avoid paying the national carbon tax, leading to an estimated $33 million loss in state revenue from these two projects alone. The report highlights systemic failures involving project promoters, verification bodies, and the Colombian Ministry of Environment.

The report characterizes "net zero" agendas as a "Great Cheat," asserting that they allow major polluters to continue emissions while relying on unproven technologies and flawed offsetting schemes. It details how these entities use lobbying, financial influence over academia, and corporate capture of international forums like the UNFCCC to displace real emission reductions. The document highlights specific failures in the plans of companies such as Shell, Total SA, and JBS, and calls for a transition to "Real Zero" by 2030 through systemic change and climate justice.

The document analyzes how 'Big Polluters' across various sectors use 'net zero' targets as a form of greenwashing to delay real emission reductions. It identifies critical conceptual flaws in these plans, such as reliance on unproven geoengineering and carbon offsets, and details how these corporations influence political and academic institutions to validate their agendas. Case studies on companies like Shell, Total SA, and JBS illustrate the gap between public commitments and actual business operations, while the report calls for a transition to 'Real Zero' by 2030.

The report claims that "net zero" agendas are a form of greenwashing used by "Big Polluters" to avoid reducing emissions. It identifies these entities as industries responsible for the majority of historical emissions, including fossil fuels, agribusiness, and aviation. The document details how these actors use risky technologies like BECCS and carbon offsets as "dangerous distractions" and employ lobbying, financial contributions, and academic partnerships to shape climate policy in their favor. Case studies on JBS, Shell, and Total SA are used to illustrate how these plans often mask continued pollution and lead to land grabbing in the Global South.

The report contends that "net zero" pledges from "Big Polluters"—including fossil fuel, agribusiness, and tech giants—are deceptive strategies to avoid responsibility for climate change. It identifies "dangerous distractions" such as carbon capture and storage (CCS), bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), and carbon offsets, arguing these schemes often lead to human rights abuses and "carbon colonialism." The document details how these corporations influence policy through lobbying, financial contributions to politicians, and the funding of academic research at institutions like Stanford and MIT to validate "net zero" narratives. Case studies of Shell, Total SA, and JBS are used to illustrate how these plans often mask continued production of high-emissions products.

The briefing examines the risks and requirements for corporate financing of Nature Based Solutions (NBS) in the context of net-zero commitments. It proposes a shift from traditional offsetting—where companies might choose to pay for reductions elsewhere rather than reducing their own emissions—to a 'counterbalancing' approach. Under this model, companies must first comply with the Science Based Targets Initiative (SBTi) to ensure they are on a 1.5°C trajectory across Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions before using NBS credits. On the supply side, the document advocates for the 'jurisdictional approach' over project-based credits to better manage risks like leakage, permanence, and additionality, highlighting the ART/TREES standard as a robust framework for ensuring environmental and social integrity.

The report examines the legal landscape for (agro)forestry in Côte d’Ivoire, highlighting that while the state aims for 20% forest cover by 2030, land tenure insecurity remains a primary risk. It details the distinctions between land titles, land certificates, and customary rights, noting that only Ivorian individuals, the State, and public authorities can hold land titles. The analysis emphasizes that investors should prioritize contracts with land certificate holders to avoid the legal uncertainty associated with customary rights, which can lead to eviction. It also explores the potential for investors to own planted trees and benefit from carbon credits through specific agreements, though it notes that carbon regulations are still being finalized.

The Vanuatu GCF Country Program outlines a strategic approach to climate transformation, identifying key vulnerabilities, policy gaps, and a prioritised portfolio of project ideas. It emphasizes a shift from top-down interventions to demand-driven, community-led solutions involving the private sector and civil society. The program categorizes project ideas into Pipeline A (high priority for 2019-2020) and Pipeline B, covering sectors such as water security, climate-resilient agriculture, renewable energy, and coastal protection, with a total estimated grant requirement of over 710 million USD.

The GCF Board's 27th meeting resulted in the adoption of the Updated Strategic Plan (2020–2023), which sets goals for the first replenishment period (GCF-1), including a 50:50 balance between mitigation and adaptation funding. The Board approved 15 funding proposals, including several REDD-plus and Simplified Approval Process (SAP) projects, and accredited four new entities. The meeting also covered the 2021 administrative budget, work plans for independent units, and discussions on the Integrated Results Management Framework (IRMF) and the MOPAN assessment.

The document critiques the concept of 'net zero' and the expansion of carbon markets, distinguishing between 'real zero' (immediate emission cuts) and 'false zero' (reliance on offsets). It asserts that fossil fuel emissions cannot be physically offset by natural ecosystems and warns that the drive for 'nature-based solutions' leads to land grabbing and the financialization of nature. The report calls for a coordinated phase-out of fossil fuels and a transition to a just, community-led energy and food system.

The document critiques the concept of 'net zero' and the use of carbon offsetting, distinguishing between 'real zero' (actual emission elimination) and 'false zero' (reliance on offsets). It asserts that carbon markets and 'nature-based solutions' are used as distractions by the fossil fuel industry and financial sectors to maintain the status quo, which risks further land grabbing and the violation of Indigenous and local community rights. The report emphasizes that fossil carbon cannot be simply absorbed by the biosphere and calls for a coordinated phase-out of fossil fuels and a transition to a climate-just economy.

The document critiques the concept of 'net zero' and carbon offsetting, distinguishing between 'true zero' (rapidly eliminating fossil fuel emissions) and 'false zero' (relying on offsets). It asserts that fossil carbon cannot be absorbed by natural cycles and that the demand for offsets leads to the financialization of nature and the dispossession of indigenous and local communities.