Search Climate Insights Directory

The report examines the tensions between Indonesia's ambitious water, energy, and food security targets and its climate and conservation commitments. Using a WEF nexus framework, it identifies how competition for land and water resources can lead to deforestation and undermine emissions targets. The analysis highlights gaps in cross-sectoral and multi-scale coordination, particularly between national mandates and local government priorities. Key recommendations include accelerating the One Map Initiative to resolve data inconsistencies, prioritizing Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEA) in spatial planning, and aligning fiscal incentives to support local governments in transitioning to sustainable development models.

The document argues that Indonesia's economic growth is threatened by environmental degradation, specifically deforestation and peatland fires. While water security is prioritised across sectors, the energy and agriculture sectors focus on built infrastructure rather than forest conservation. The report highlights that ambitious food and bioenergy targets risk further deforestation unless productivity is increased or degraded land is prioritised. Governance is complicated by a complex legal framework and a disconnect between national plans and local government implementation. A case study in Aceh demonstrates that increasing oil palm yields to national averages could meet production targets without further land conversion, whereas 'business-as-usual' scenarios would require converting 220,000 hectares of land.

The document examines the intersection of climate change and human rights, detailing how environmental changes and mitigation/adaptation efforts affect fundamental rights. It highlights the vulnerability of women, children, and indigenous peoples, and reviews key international milestones such as the Malé Declaration and the Cancun Agreements. The guide recommends establishing a Special Procedure on Climate Change and Human Rights and integrating human rights protections directly into the UNFCCC framework.

The report documents a global pattern of violence and legal harassment against land and environmental rights defenders in 2013. It argues that these individuals, often representing vulnerable indigenous or rural communities, are targeted by governments and corporations during conflicts over natural resources and large-scale development projects. The document provides specific case studies from Europe, the Americas, Africa, and Asia, detailing arrests, assassinations, and forced displacements linked to opposition to mining, hydroelectric dams, agribusiness, and oil exploration.

The document serves as a reference tool to track the recognition of Indigenous Peoples' rights and traditional knowledge within the UNFCCC process, highlighting over 60 decisions and the establishment of the Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples Platform.

The document advocates for a land-use planning framework that separates terrestrial carbon sequestration from industrial emission reductions due to the temporary nature of the former. It emphasizes that mitigation must prioritize food sovereignty, legally enforce the land rights of indigenous peoples and local communities, and avoid using land-sector targets to offset continued fossil fuel emissions. The paper critiques current Kyoto Protocol accounting as overly complex and prone to loopholes, suggesting instead the use of direct indicators like hectares of forest maintained. Specific recommendations include addressing high meat consumption and synthetic fertilizer use in developed countries to achieve permanent emission reductions in agriculture.

The document serves as a practical guide for indigenous and local community leaders to navigate the human rights implications of REDD+ initiatives. It explains the mechanism's goals, the seven UNFCCC safeguards, and the specific collective rights—such as self-determination, land tenure, and Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC)—that are often at risk. The guide provides strategic advice for negotiations and lists national and international grievance mechanisms, including the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and World Bank inspection panels, to address rights violations.

The document outlines the basic concepts of REDD+, the associated safeguards agreed upon under the UNFCCC, and the specific human rights—such as self-determination, land tenure, and free, prior and informed consent (FPIC)—that may be impacted by forest governance initiatives. It provides practical advice for community leaders on negotiating REDD+ activities and lists national and international mechanisms for seeking justice and reporting rights violations.

The briefing contends that addressing international drivers of deforestation is essential for the success of REDD+ and is legally permissible under both UNFCCC and WTO frameworks. It asserts that UNFCCC Article 3.5 does not prohibit trade-impacting measures as long as they are not arbitrary or disguised restrictions. Furthermore, it highlights that the WTO allows trade-related measures to protect the environment, specifically citing GATT Article XX exceptions for protecting life, health, and exhaustible natural resources. The authors point to at least fifteen existing Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs) that incorporate trade measures as precedent, arguing that collective action within the UNFCCC would demonstrate the 'good faith negotiations' often required by WTO arbitration panels. The document concludes that ignoring international drivers due to perceived WTO conflicts risks 'leakage' and undermines the goal of halting forest loss.

The document argues for a transparent, country-driven MRV system for REDD+ that integrates carbon monitoring with social and environmental safeguards. It emphasizes the need for clear definitions of 'forest' using FAO categories to distinguish between the five REDD+ activities and calls for the full participation of indigenous peoples and local communities in the MRV process. The submission also highlights the necessity of a common reporting format for REDD+ finance to ensure transparency and accountability, particularly regarding 'new and additional' funding and the Green Climate Fund safeguards.

The document examines how Peru's regulatory framework for the timber industry facilitates illegal logging, which in turn threatens the success of REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) efforts. It highlights that illegal logging may account for up to 80% of exported timber and that 68.3% of supervised logging concessions have been cancelled or are under investigation for serious violations. The author argues that project-level improvements are insufficient to prevent 'leakage' (emissions shifting to other areas) or ensure 'permanence' (long-term emission reductions) without national-level legal reform and clearer international guidelines from the UNFCCC on Safeguard Information Systems (SIS).

The document examines how Peru's regulatory framework for logging enables widespread illegal activity, which in turn threatens the success of REDD+ initiatives. It highlights that without national-scale reform, project-based efforts to reduce emissions will be negated by leakage and reversals.

The briefing argues that the EU must move beyond simply cleaning up its own supply chains to create 'win-win' Forest Partnerships with developing countries. These partnerships should address root causes of deforestation—such as poverty and weak land tenure—while supporting Indigenous Peoples, small-scale producers, and nature-based solutions to meet Paris Agreement and CBD objectives. The authors recommend leveraging the Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument (NDICI) for funding and using 'Forest Diplomacy' to encourage other major consuming regions to adopt similar measures.

The document examines five international case studies to guide Ghana in operationalizing its Environmental Protection Act, 2025. It highlights the risks of transacting carbon before establishing legal frameworks, as seen in Liberia, and the benefits of statutory community benefit-sharing floors, as implemented in Kenya. The analysis contrasts state-centered models in Zambia and Indonesia with Australia's property-law approach, where carbon rights are registrable interests in land. The briefing concludes with seven specific recommendations for Ghana, including the definition of carbon rights as transactable interests and the mandate of community development agreements to ensure free, prior and informed consent.

The document identifies a critical legal gap in Ghana: while the Environmental Protection Act, 2025 (Act 1124) regulates carbon market operations, it does not define who owns forest carbon. Consequently, ownership is currently inferred from a complex mix of land tenure, tree tenure, and customary law. The briefing analyzes two competing legal classifications—treating carbon as an ecosystem service versus a natural resource—and argues that the chosen model significantly impacts whether local farmers and communities receive direct benefits. It recommends a hybrid approach that maintains State regulatory oversight while statutorily guaranteeing benefit entitlements for those who steward the forests, utilizing Community Resource Management Areas (CREMAs) as a practical delivery mechanism.

The document outlines how forest carbon is monetised through compliance and voluntary markets, detailing Ghana's role as an early adopter of Article 6 of the Paris Agreement. It describes Ghana's regulatory pathway for carbon projects, highlights key transactions like the Ghana Cocoa Forest REDD+ Programme and the Ghana Shea Landscape Emission Reductions Project, and identifies risks such as double counting and bargaining power asymmetries. The briefing concludes with recommendations to codify regulations, standardise transaction documents, and target high-integrity market segments.

The document argues that current national emission pledges for 2020 are incomparable due to differing accounting methods and are collectively insufficient to maintain robust carbon market prices. It highlights that the global recession has reduced the actual effort required to meet these targets and warns that weak short-term pledges shift a disproportionate and potentially infeasible burden of emission reductions onto future generations to meet 2050 goals.

Peru's emissions are projected to triple by 2050, driven by economic growth and energy demand. While the country has established mitigation plans and Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs), implementation is hindered by financial, regulatory, and knowledge barriers. Significant potential exists in renewable energy, forestry, and waste management, though the energy sector is currently dominated by natural gas. The report suggests that SECO can support Peru through capacity building for market mechanisms, financing marginal abatement cost studies, and promoting specific technologies like solar water heaters and energy-efficient industrial equipment.

Vietnam faces high vulnerability to climate change and rapidly growing emissions, projected to reach 387 Mt by 2030, primarily driven by energy supply. While the government has established the National Target Program and various energy efficiency laws, the report finds that existing and planned projects are likely to harvest only 12% of the available abatement potential between 2015 and 2030. Major barriers include low electricity and coal prices, limited technical and financial capacity among stakeholders, and institutional overlaps. The study recommends a coordinated national mitigation programme and specific sector-level interventions in REDD+, wind policy, industrial energy efficiency, and waste management.

The document is an appendix of consulted legislation for a report on forest restoration in the Amazon. It catalogs federal laws and specific state-level legal frameworks from Acre, Amapá, Amazonas, Mato Grosso, Pará, and Rondônia, and Roraima. The listed legislation covers a wide range of environmental governance topics, including the Forest Code, REDD+ mechanisms, Environmental Regularization Programs (PRA), and state-specific policies on bioeconomy, agroecology, and payment for environmental services.