Search Climate Insights Directory

The statement criticizes developed nations, specifically Japan, for using climate finance to fund coal-fired power plants in developing countries like Indonesia. It highlights a lack of coherent rules for the Green Climate Fund (GCF) and argues that current international climate agreements, including the US-China deal, are insufficient and non-binding. The author demands that climate finance be restricted to renewable energy and that developed countries fulfill their 'climate debt' through public finance and technology transfers.

The document examines how extraterritorial obligations (ETOs), as clarified by the Maastricht Principles, are essential for holding states accountable for environmental destruction and climate change that impact human rights beyond their own borders. It highlights gaps in protection caused by globalization, specifically regarding transnational corporations and intergovernmental organizations. Using examples like tropical deforestation and shipbreaking in South Asia, the guide illustrates how state omissions and the failure to regulate non-state actors lead to severe human rights impairments. It concludes that a human rights-based approach to climate change is necessary to ensure equitable mitigation and protection for the world's most vulnerable populations.

The document examines how states' extraterritorial obligations (ETOs), as defined by the Maastricht Principles, are essential for regulating transnational corporations and state actions that cause cross-border environmental damage. It highlights the vulnerability of indigenous peoples and environmental defenders, and uses examples such as illegal logging in tropical forests and shipbreaking in South Asia to illustrate the need for international legal accountability. The report further links climate change to threats against human health, global security, and fundamental human rights, advocating for a human-rights-based approach to climate policy.

The document serves as a toolkit for local communities to resist land grabbing by governments and corporations. It explains the conflict between customary and statutory law, outlines how to utilize international human rights mechanisms—including UN Special Rapporteurs—and critiques eleven common corporate promises regarding development, jobs, and food security. It specifically highlights the vulnerabilities of women and indigenous peoples and advocates for 'Free, Prior and Informed Consent' (FPIC).

The document emphasizes that robust accounting rules and quality criteria are essential for the integrity of future carbon markets to avoid double counting and ensure net atmospheric benefits. It advocates for consistency across different mechanisms, including those for international aviation (ICAO), and warns against including land-use activities like REDD-plus in carbon markets due to risks of leakage and impermanence.

The CFAS Guide outlines the state of climate finance negotiations leading up to COP20 in Lima. It details the progress of the US$100 billion annual mobilization goal, the operationalization of the Green Climate Fund (GCF), and the financial challenges facing the Adaptation Fund. The document also examines the role of the Standing Committee on Finance (SCF) in improving the measurement, reporting, and verification (MRV) of financial flows and the coordination of forest financing. Additionally, it discusses the integration of finance into Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) and the elements of the forthcoming 2015 climate agreement.

The CFAS Guide outlines the state of climate finance negotiations leading up to COP20 in Lima, focusing on long-term funding goals, the operationalization of the Green Climate Fund, and the roles of various financial mechanisms under the UNFCCC.

The CFAS Guide outlines the state of climate finance negotiations leading up to COP20 in Lima. It details the goal of mobilizing 100 billion USD annually by 2020, the role of the Standing Committee on Finance (SCF) in monitoring financial flows, and the operational progress of the Green Climate Fund (GCF), Adaptation Fund, and Global Environment Facility (GEF). The document emphasizes the need for predictability in funding, the balance between mitigation and adaptation, and the development of measurement, reporting, and verification (MRV) systems for climate support.

The report argues that a high ambition climate agreement, aiming to limit global warming to 2°C by 2100, is essential for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by 2030. While physical climate impacts are projected to be similar across scenarios until 2030, a high ambition deal provides the policy framework, international cooperation, and finance necessary to drive green growth and reduce poverty. Conversely, a low ambition agreement (3-5°C warming) is linked to slower economic growth, higher inequality, and a significantly greater risk of failing to meet SDGs related to poverty, inequality, and global partnerships.

The document analyzes Mexico's progress in establishing a National Safeguard System (SNS) and a Safeguard Information System (SIS) for REDD+, highlighting the integration of these systems with national laws like the General Law on Sustainable Forest Development (LGDFS). While Mexico is a frontrunner in REDD+ preparation, the study identifies critical gaps in the operationalization of free, prior and informed consent (FPIC), clarity on carbon ownership for avoided emissions, and the risk of diluted standards resulting from the World Bank's safeguard review process. It argues that explicit international guidance from the UNFCCC is necessary to help countries translate safeguard principles into action and avoid the conceptual confusion and sporadic progress experienced by Mexico.

The document examines Mexico's progress in implementing REDD+ safeguards, highlighting the transition from confusing the SIS with the SNS to establishing a framework based on national law and sustainable rural development. While Mexico has strong institutional capacity and a history of community forestry, the report identifies critical gaps in the operationalization of Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC), clarity on avoided emission carbon rights, and the risk of weakened World Bank safeguard policies. It argues that international guidance from the UNFCCC is necessary to standardize reporting and ensure the protection of indigenous and local community rights.

Carbon Market Watch argues that previous market-based mechanisms, such as the CDM and EU ETS, failed due to oversupply and poor environmental integrity. To prevent these failures in a post-2020 regime, the organization recommends strict eligibility rules based on national ambition, the exclusion of REDD-plus and agriculture from carbon markets, and the implementation of discounting to ensure net atmospheric benefits. It further calls for a UN-led standard-setting body, a robust institutional safeguard system to protect human rights, and a share of proceeds from all traded units to be allocated to the Adaptation Fund.

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 opposes expanding LULUCF activities within the CDM, citing risks to climate adaptation, a lack of market demand for offsets, and the non-permanent nature of land-based carbon sequestration compared to permanent fossil fuel emissions. The organization suggests that LULUCF activities are better suited for Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs), National Adaptation Plans (NAPs), and REDD+, emphasizing a rights-based approach to food security and land rights.

The report argues that Anglo American and other dirty energy corporations have 'captured' climate policy-making, particularly within the UNFCCC, to protect their business models. It highlights the severe social and environmental damage caused by the El Cerrejón coal mine in Colombia, including water scarcity and the displacement of indigenous and Afro-Colombian communities. The document details Anglo American's use of a 'web of influence'—including memberships in groups like the ICC, WBCSD, and EUROMINES—to lobby for market-based mechanisms such as carbon trading and carbon capture and storage (CCS), which the authors term 'false solutions'. It concludes by calling for the removal of corporate privileged access to climate negotiations, the end of public subsidies for dirty energy, and increased lobby transparency.

The report denounces Anglo American for using its privileged access to governments and the UNFCCC to undermine genuine climate action in favor of 'false solutions' like carbon markets and carbon capture. It highlights the severe social and environmental impacts of the El Cerrejón coal mine in Colombia, including water scarcity and the displacement of indigenous and Afro-Colombian communities. The document argues that corporate capture of international climate negotiations prevents the addressing of systemic causes of climate change and calls for the complete removal of corporate influence from climate policy-making.

The report exposes the dual nature of Anglo American's operations: the severe human rights and environmental impacts of its El Cerrejón coal mine in Colombia, and its strategic lobbying within the UNFCCC and other international bodies to maintain a fossil-fuel-based energy model. It argues that the company promotes 'false solutions'—such as carbon markets and carbon capture and storage (CCS)—to avoid structural changes and continue profiting from pollution. The authors call for the removal of corporate privileged access to climate negotiations and the end of public subsidies for polluting energies.

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 document critiques the REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) mechanism, asserting that it prioritizes private finance and corporate interests over indigenous rights and genuine climate mitigation. Through case studies in Indonesia, Mozambique, and Peru, it demonstrates how REDD projects can exacerbate land conflicts, threaten food security, and fail to achieve carbon reduction goals. The report concludes that REDD is a 'false solution' that allows industrial polluters in the Global North to continue emitting via carbon offsets. It proposes an alternative based on community-led forest management, the resolution of land tenure issues, and a systemic reduction in the consumption of resources by rich countries.

Friends of the Earth International (FoEI) critiques the REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) mechanism, claiming it exacerbates land tenure conflicts, threatens food security, and allows industrial polluters in the Global North to avoid domestic emission cuts. Through case studies in Indonesia, Mozambique, and Peru, the report illustrates failures in carbon accounting, financial instability, and the marginalization of Indigenous peoples. FoEI proposes an alternative model of community forest management, citing Bolivia's proposal to the UNFCCC as a viable path toward climate justice and sustainable forest preservation.