Search Climate Insights Directory

The document critiques the concept of "net zero," distinguishing between "real zero" (immediate deep emission cuts) and "fake zero" (reliance on offsets). It asserts that carbon offsets do not reduce atmospheric CO2 concentrations and that the land required to meet corporate offset demands would be ecologically and socially catastrophic. The report specifically highlights the role of the financial sector and fossil fuel majors in rehabilitating voluntary carbon markets to maintain business-as-usual operations.

The document examines the role of nature-based solutions (NBS) in corporate net-zero strategies, emphasizing that while NBS can provide critical finance for conservation and significant co-benefits for biodiversity, they must not substitute for direct fossil fuel abatement. It details 'demand-side' risks, such as the potential for offsets to dilute corporate ambition, and 'supply-side' risks, including leakage, permanence, and additionality. The authors advocate for a 'both/and' approach combining aggressive internal decarbonization with high-quality NBS credits, preferably shifting from project-based to jurisdictional-scale crediting to improve integrity.

The document examines the role of community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) in combating corruption. While these efforts can reduce local-level bribery and increase transparency, they often fail to address 'institutional capture'—where elite interests manipulate state policies for private gain. Using a case study of rosewood logging in Madagascar's Makira Natural Park, the authors demonstrate that high-value resources can drive national-level corruption that overrides local conservation efforts. The briefing recommends a multi-level approach that integrates local social accountability with national-level democratic reforms and political economy analysis.

Carbon Market Watch expresses significant concerns regarding the Taskforce on Scaling Voluntary Carbon Markets' blueprint, stating that it risks creating a speculative financial market that benefits the financial sector more than the climate. The organization argues that scaling the market without first addressing systemic integrity issues, such as the lack of transparency and the use of low-quality offsets, could lead to widespread greenwashing and a net increase in global greenhouse gas emissions. It specifically opposes the use of biological carbon sinks for offsets due to non-permanence and measurement uncertainties, and rejects the introduction of core carbon spot and futures contracts as a means of increasing opacity.

The report argues that emissions trading mechanisms under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement risk undermining global mitigation ambition and causing human rights violations. It proposes three essential policy pillars—robust public participation, social and environmental safeguards, and independent grievance mechanisms—as prerequisites for any such framework. The document highlights failures in previous systems like the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and provides examples of 'good policies' from development finance institutions to guide the UNFCCC in creating a rights-compliant rulebook.

The annex evaluates the gap between the economic mitigation potential of forests and the quantitative targets set in NDCs for 32 high-potential countries. It identifies a global annual finance need for forest protection and restoration ranging from USD 45 billion to USD 460 billion, while noting that current 'green finance' flows are significantly lower than 'grey finance' flows directed toward sectors like agriculture.

The 2021 NYDF Assessment finds that while forests are recognized in the Paris Agreement, global forest loss is increasing and current government efforts are insufficient to meet 2030 targets. The report highlights a critical funding gap, where current investments cover only 5% of the required finance, and notes that government targets for high-mitigation potential countries capture only half of the available potential for emission reductions and carbon sinks. It further emphasizes that while legal frameworks for Indigenous Peoples and local communities (IPLC) exist, their implementation and tenure security remain weak, with only 11% of empowerment funding explicitly advancing tenure reform between 2011 and 2020.

The report identifies 24 deforestation fronts across Latin America, sub-Saharan Africa, Southeast Asia, and Oceania, where over 43 million hectares of forest were lost between 2004 and 2017. It argues that while commercial agriculture remains the dominant direct driver, indirect pressures such as population growth, dietary shifts toward meat, and weak governance amplify forest loss. The analysis evaluates a range of responses, from area-based protections and indigenous land rights to commodity-specific certifications and REDD+ frameworks, concluding that no single approach is sufficient and that integrated, context-specific solutions are required to halt deforestation.

The Republic of Chad is seeking a second GCF readiness grant to address gaps in climate finance mobilization. The proposal focuses on four main outcomes: strengthening the institutional capacity of the National Designated Authority (NDA), updating the national GCF website, operationalizing the No-Objection Procedure (NOP), and establishing a Measurement, Reporting, and Verification (MRV) tool for climate finance flows. Additionally, it aims to update the Chad Country Programme and develop at least three high-quality project concept notes in sectors such as agriculture, water, and fisheries. A significant component of the request is the mobilization of the private sector through a landscape analysis and a call for project ideas to reduce the country's climate investment deficit.

The proposed programme aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 31.6 million tCO2eq and increase the resilience of 3.8 million people in the Amazon basin. It focuses on four components: strengthening monitoring and early warning systems, expanding sustainable land use and finance, empowering indigenous peoples and local communities for climate adaptation, and fostering regional cooperation among the five participating countries. The programme seeks USD 100 million in GCF grants to scale up successful national strategies and mobilize private sector investment through mechanisms like the Green Business Facility.

The report by Friends of the Earth International critiques 'false solutions' to biodiversity loss and climate change, which it defines as market-based mechanisms that commodify nature. It argues that these solutions—such as carbon credits and biodiversity offsets—allow corporations to continue polluting through 'compensation' while stripping local and indigenous communities of their land rights. The document details a four-phase process of commodification where nature is redefined as 'natural capital' and 'ecosystem services.' It concludes that true solutions must address the root causes of ecological destruction by challenging capitalist accumulation and prioritizing social, gender, and environmental justice.

The report argues that 'false solutions' to environmental crises are characterized by the financialisation of nature, where ecosystems are treated as 'natural capital' and traded as commodities. These mechanisms, such as carbon credits and biodiversity offsets, allow corporations to continue polluting by paying for compensation elsewhere, often leading to the violation of Indigenous and local community rights. The document contrasts these with 'real solutions' based on grassroots power, social and gender justice, and the dismantling of capitalist accumulation.

The report argues that 'false solutions' to environmental crises—such as carbon markets and biodiversity offsets—do not address root causes but instead reinforce the dominant economic system and corporate power. These mechanisms are characterized by the commodification of nature, the use of technical complexity to exclude public debate, and the violation of Indigenous and local community rights. The document contrasts these with 'real solutions' based on popular power, anti-capitalist perspectives, and the sustainability of life.

The report introduces a four-step blueprint for corporate climate action: accounting and disclosing emissions, reducing value chain emissions via science-based targets, quantifying a financial commitment by pricing remaining emissions, and investing that commitment into further reductions, climate innovation, and high-quality carbon credits. It argues that current 'footprint-based' approaches are insufficient and advocates for a forward-looking model that integrates nature-based solutions and policy advocacy to achieve a net-zero global economy.

The 2020 assessment concludes that the goal of restoring 150 million hectares of forest by 2020 is not on track, with global forest cover gain meeting only one fifth of the target. While political will is evident through 63 Bonn Challenge pledges totaling 172.82 million hectares, biophysical progress is hindered by data gaps and the fact that tree cover gains are often offset by ongoing deforestation. A case study of Central America highlights this dynamic, showing a net loss of 320 million hectares of tree cover between 2011 and 2018 despite significant gross gains. The report notes a growing trend of private-sector restoration pledges from companies like Amazon and Nestle, though financial transparency and systematic planning remain significant hurdles for scaling forest landscape restoration (FLR).

The report evaluates the operationalization of REDD+ and the inclusion of forest-related mitigation targets in Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) under the Paris Agreement. While the overarching goal of including forests in a global climate agreement is considered met, the report identifies significant barriers to REDD+ implementation, including insufficient finance and a lack of quantifiable targets in many NDCs. Recent updates to NDCs show some improvement in the quality and scale of forest targets in specific countries.

The 2020 assessment of NYDF Goal 9 reveals that while nearly USD 4.7 billion in results-based finance has been committed since 2010, only 40 percent has been disbursed. The report highlights a significant gap in funding for the implementation phase of REDD+ activities and notes that carbon markets have channeled USD 2.5 billion to forests over 20 years. While private sector demand for forest carbon offsets is rising among airlines and petroleum companies, current carbon prices remain too low to meet Paris Agreement objectives. Additionally, the report details various domestic compliance schemes in countries like Australia, Canada, and China that allow for forest carbon credits.

The 2020 assessment of the New York Declaration on Forests (NYDF) finds that progress toward reducing deforestation from extractive sectors and infrastructure is slow. Despite some national policies and corporate commitments, a lack of transparency, weak enforcement, and a continued reliance on top-down extractive economic models hinder success. The report emphasizes that ending natural forest loss by 2030 requires a paradigm shift toward valuing forests and supporting community-led sustainable development.

The 2020 NYDF Progress Assessment finds that natural forest loss has increased since 2014, failing the target to halve the rate. While governments and companies have adopted some policies and commitments, implementation is slow, transparency is limited, and the pace of large-scale infrastructure and resource extraction continues to threaten intact forests. The report highlights a critical gap between high-level policy and on-the-ground enforcement, noting that Indigenous and local communities often lack influence in development planning and face increasing repression.

The report finds that the rate of natural forest cover loss has increased since 2014, failing to meet NYDF Goal 1. Progress on Goals 3 and 4 is slow, hampered by a lack of transparency in the extractive and infrastructure sectors, weak government enforcement of environmental laws, and a systemic failure to integrate the rights of indigenous peoples and smallholders into development planning. While some governments have established protected areas and REDD+ strategies, implementation is often undermined by political instability and the prioritization of resource extraction over forest conservation.