Search Climate Insights Directory

The 2016 assessment of NYDF Goal 2 finds that while corporate commitments to deforestation-free supply chains are increasing—reaching 415 companies and 701 commitments—implementation remains uneven. Progress is most advanced for palm oil and wood products, while soy and cattle lag behind. Despite improvements in risk assessment and procurement rules, fewer than half of assessed companies have time-bound actionable plans, and only 45% report on compliance. The report highlights that over 90% of assessed companies operate in deforestation hotspots, specifically Brazil, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Paraguay. However, the overall impact on global forest loss cannot yet be measured due to a lack of comprehensive global data sets linking supply-chain efforts to actual deforestation reductions.

Burkina Faso is highly vulnerable to climate change due to its heavy reliance on rain-fed agriculture and livestock, which employ approximately 80-90% of its workforce. The country faces risks from rising temperatures, rainfall variability, and extreme events like floods and droughts. While the government has established a National Adaptation Plan (2015) and a coordinating body (CONEDD), adaptation efforts remain heavily concentrated in the agricultural sector, with limited integration into health or urban planning. Adaptation is largely driven by international funding and regional projects, with a significant gap in subnational guidance and local government capacity.

The document describes REDD+ as a voluntary framework for developing countries to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation while enhancing forest carbon stocks. It details the five core activities, the three phases of implementation (readiness, implementation, and results-based finance), and the requirements for receiving results-based payments, including national strategies and monitoring systems. The report also outlines how the 2015 Paris Agreement integrates REDD+ into the global climate architecture, specifically regarding Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and transparency frameworks.

Friends of the Earth International concludes that the Paris Agreement fails the 'People's Climate Test' due to its lack of binding emission targets, insufficient financial commitments for developing nations, and the absence of concrete mechanisms for loss and damage. The organization criticizes the agreement for not mentioning renewable energy or the phase-out of fossil fuels, while leaving the door open to 'false solutions' like geo-engineering and carbon markets.

Friends of the Earth International concludes that the Paris Agreement fails to provide climate justice, citing a lack of binding emissions targets for developed nations, insufficient financial commitments for developing countries, and the absence of concrete mechanisms for loss and damage reparations. The organization criticizes the agreement for not mentioning renewable energy or energy efficiency and for leaving the door open to 'false solutions' like carbon markets and geoengineering.

Friends of the Earth International concludes that the Paris Agreement fails the 'People’s Test on Climate' due to a lack of binding emissions targets, insufficient financial commitments for developing nations, and the absence of protections for vulnerable communities. The assessment highlights that the agreement does not mandate a phase-out of fossil fuels, lacks mentions of renewable energy or energy efficiency, and relies on unproven technologies like BECCS. Furthermore, it argues that the agreement weakens the principle of 'Common But Differentiated Responsibilities' and excludes compensation and liability for loss and damage.

Friends of the Earth Africa criticizes the draft Paris agreement for failing to provide adequate resources for adaptation, ignoring climate debt, and promoting market-based mechanisms like REDD that may facilitate land grabs. The organization warns that the current trajectory could lead to 5 to 8 degrees of warming in Africa, causing systemic ecological collapse and mass casualties.

The document examines the human rights obligations of states and the private sector in the context of climate change mitigation. It analyzes failures in stakeholder consultation and sustainable development within the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), REDD+, and Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs), using case studies from Panama, India, Mexico, and Georgia. The brief concludes that current UNFCCC mechanisms lack sufficient specificity and grievance procedures, recommending that the Paris Agreement explicitly mandate the respect, protection, and fulfillment of human rights in all climate actions.

Carbon Market Watch argues that while few countries explicitly include international trading in their Intended Nationally Determined Contributions, carbon pricing is already used by jurisdictions representing 40% of the global economy. The organization warns that a lack of clear international rules could lead to non-harmonized standards and double counting. It recommends strict principles for carbon markets, including the avoidance of 'hot air' credits, the requirement for net atmospheric benefits, and the exclusion of REDD-plus from carbon markets.

The briefing advocates for Community Forest Management (CFM) as a superior model for protecting biodiversity and mitigating climate change compared to industrial forestry and absolute protection regimes. It highlights that CFM can reduce deforestation rates and enhance carbon storage while securing the rights and livelihoods of Indigenous Peoples and local communities. The document warns against 'false solutions' like REDD+ and the 'financialization of nature,' which it claims risk land grabbing and the erosion of traditional governance. It recommends that governments recognize collective land tenure and that international frameworks, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity, prioritize CFM over traditional Protected Areas to meet conservation goals.

The document advocates for community forest management (CFM) as a superior alternative to industrial logging and strict protection regimes. It asserts that CFM effectively reduces deforestation, protects biodiversity, and supports climate mitigation and adaptation by empowering indigenous peoples and local communities. The text identifies key success factors such as land tenure security and warns against 'false solutions' like REDD+ and the financialization of nature, which it claims risk land grabbing and the erosion of community control.

The document advocates for Community Forest Management (CFM) as a critical tool for biodiversity conservation and climate mitigation. It presents evidence that CFM often outperforms strict protection regimes in reducing deforestation, particularly when supported by secure land tenure and local autonomy. The briefing highlights the role of CFM in carbon sequestration and climate adaptation, while warning against 'false solutions' like REDD+ and the financialisation of nature, which it claims threaten community rights and traditional governance.

The report advocates for community forest management (CFM) as a superior strategy for environmental conservation and social justice. It provides evidence that forests managed by indigenous peoples and local communities often have lower deforestation rates and higher carbon storage than state-protected areas. The document identifies secure land tenure, local autonomy in decision-making, and strong social capital as critical success factors. It also warns against 'false solutions' like REDD+ and the financialization of nature, which it claims can lead to land grabbing and the erosion of traditional knowledge. The report concludes by recommending that governments prioritize collective land rights and traditional knowledge over market-based conservation mechanisms.

The document presents community forest management (CFM) as a superior alternative to industrial logging and strict protected areas for preserving biodiversity and mitigating climate change. It highlights that CFM can be more effective at reducing deforestation, as evidenced by data from Brazil and Costa Rica, and provides critical livelihood support to approximately 1.6 billion people. The text identifies key success factors for CFM, including secure land tenure, local decision-making autonomy, and strong social capital. Conversely, it warns against 'false solutions' such as REDD+ and the financialization of nature, which it claims risk land grabbing and the erosion of traditional governance. The document concludes by recommending the prioritization of decentralized, authentic CFM and the legal protection of indigenous and local community rights to ensure ecological and social justice.

The briefing advocates for Community Forest Management (CFM) as a superior model for forest conservation and climate action compared to industrial logging and state-led protected areas. It highlights CFM's role in carbon storage and biodiversity protection, while warning against market-based mechanisms like REDD+ that may lead to land grabbing. The document recommends that governments recognize communal land tenure and prioritize CFM to meet international biodiversity targets.

The report evaluates forest governance through three indicators: institutional policy scores, the rule of law (illegal logging and violence), and land tenure rights for indigenous peoples and local communities (IPLCs). While some progress is noted in policy frameworks and the total area of recognized IPLC rights, the report highlights a slowdown in tenure recognition since 2008, a rise in absolute volumes of illegal timber imports—particularly into China—and persistent violence against land defenders, especially in Latin America.

The document evaluates the impact of subsistence and smallholder activities on forest loss, noting that while they account for approximately 33% of deforestation and 27-34% of degradation in tropical and subtropical regions, the relationship between poverty and forest loss is non-linear. It identifies clean cookstove distribution and financial support for woodfuel interventions as key proxy indicators for progress. The report highlights a significant increase in Official Development Assistance (ODA) for the woodfuel sector and provides case studies from the Democratic Republic of Congo and Peru to illustrate localized interventions. It concludes that agricultural ODA and climate mitigation forestry ODA are largely uncoordinated, with the latter concentrating in middle-income countries rather than the least developed countries where food security is most pressing.

The document evaluates the status of land-use and forestry commitments within the UNFCCC framework ahead of the December 2015 Paris Agreement. It finds that while the REDD+ methodological framework is largely complete, the final text of the Paris Agreement remained under intense negotiation. Analysis of 122 submitted INDCs reveals that most countries set economy-wide targets, with 40 including specific forest actions and 18 explicitly excluding the land-use sector.

The document evaluates five indicators of financial support for reducing forest emissions: international public climate finance, domestic public spending, private sector investment, indigenous peoples' investments, and civil society investments. It finds that while international public finance from OECD countries has increased, there is a critical lack of harmonized global data for domestic and private sector spending. The report highlights the role of payment for ecosystem services (PES) in developing countries and the emerging potential of South-South cooperation, notably China's commitment of US$3.1 billion in climate finance.

The report evaluates the effectiveness of public and private financial incentives for reducing forest emissions between 2005 and 2015. It finds that while over US$3 billion in public funds were committed to performance-based REDD+ payments by 2014, actual disbursements lagged at just over US$1 billion. The private forest carbon market experienced rapid growth until 2011 but subsequently declined, with the market value falling to approximately US$150 million by 2013. The document highlights that the voluntary carbon market alone is insufficient to scale up demand and emphasizes the need for integration into emissions trading systems.