Search Climate Insights Directory

The document provides a comprehensive overview of carbon finance, detailing instruments such as carbon taxes, credits, and cap-and-trade systems. It analyzes the operational requirements for implementing these mechanisms, the differences between shallow and mature markets, and the specific impacts on sectors like industrial decarbonization and AFOLU. The briefing also highlights the role of the EU ETS and CBAM, as well as the challenges related to monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) and the policy uncertainty surrounding Article 6 of the Paris Agreement.

The report analyzes how state policies in the Brazilian Amazon facilitate or hinder forest restoration. It finds that while states have been pioneers in REDD+ and PSA and are essential for implementing the Forest Code via CAR and PRA, significant gaps remain. These include a lack of integrated governance, insufficient incentives for voluntary restoration, and bureaucratic barriers to native species silviculture. Pará is highlighted as the most advanced state, being the only one with a comprehensive State Native Vegetation Recovery Plan (PRVN-PA) and a mechanism for restoration concessions on public lands.

The document critiques the draft methodology for energy efficiency in household cooking, arguing that while it improves upon the legacy AMS-II.G methodology, it still contains critical flaws regarding the fraction of non-renewable biomass (fNRB), usage rate reporting, and the frequency of Kitchen Performance Tests (KPTs). Carbon Market Watch advocates for the exclusive use of Ghilardi & Bailis 2024 values for fNRB, a 50% cap on survey-only usage reporting, and annual or quarterly KPTs to prevent over-crediting.

Carbon Market Watch argues for stringent rules to prevent double counting, 'hot air' credits, and the inclusion of REDD-plus in carbon markets. It advocates for a 'net atmospheric benefit' through discounting, the establishment of a share of proceeds for adaptation and loss and damage, and the integration of a human rights-based approach into the core agreement to protect vulnerable populations.

The report contends that carbon offsets in agriculture fail to reduce absolute emissions due to measurement uncertainties, lack of permanence, and issues with additionality. It highlights how these schemes often benefit agribusinesses while undermining food security, increasing land financialization, and locking in industrial farming models. The authors recommend excluding the land sector from international carbon markets under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement and redirecting finance toward agroecological practices.

The document asserts that fossil and biological carbon operate on fundamentally different timescales and cycles, making them non-fungible. While fossil carbon is permanent, biological carbon is subject to rapid fluxes and risks of reversibility from fires, pests, or rising temperatures. The author contends that relying on biological offsets to mitigate fossil emissions is scientifically unsound and practically limited by land area and nutrient requirements, concluding that emissions from both sources must be addressed in parallel rather than through offsetting.

Carbon Market Watch has filed a complaint with the ICVCM, asserting that Verra violated the Core Carbon Principles (CCP) Assessment Framework by failing to ensure impartiality during its review of human rights allegations made by Human Rights Watch. The complaint highlights that Verra relied on the project implementer and the same validation/verification bodies that had previously approved the project, creating inherent conflicts of interest. Carbon Market Watch calls on the ICVCM to evaluate the real-world effectiveness of Verra's grievance mechanism and to implement a broader process for assessing program compliance beyond written commitments.

The document evaluates the Paris Agreement as a positive step that increased global ambition to limit warming to 1.5ºC, though it notes that current Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) remain inadequate. It details the creation of three frameworks under Article 6 for carbon markets and non-market approaches, while warning against the use of temporary land-use carbon sequestration to justify continued fossil pollution. The analysis highlights gaps in climate finance, the lack of explicit mandates for international aviation and shipping, and the historic inclusion of human rights in the preamble.

The 11th GCF Board meeting resulted in the approval of the first eight funding proposals totaling USD 168 million for projects in Africa, Asia-Pacific, and Latin America. The Board adopted a monitoring and accountability framework for accredited entities, including a fee policy for public sector projects (7-10%) and a five-year re-accreditation cycle. While USD 10.2 billion has been pledged to the Fund, only USD 5.83 billion has been signed, with 14 countries yet to finalize contribution agreements. Additionally, the Board approved USD 14 million for readiness support and agreed to develop a strategic plan to be considered at the 12th meeting.

The submission argues that environmental attribute certificates, specifically REDD+ carbon credits and energy certificates like RECs and GOs, are unsuitable for corporate decarbonisation targets. It highlights systemic issues in the voluntary carbon market, including over-crediting and flawed methodologies in REDD+ projects, and asserts that energy certificates are financial instruments that do not represent physical electricity delivery. The document advocates for a strict separation of these certificates from gross emission reduction targets, citing the EU Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) as a regulatory precedent.

The document argues that carbon markets, offsetting systems, and carbon credits are 'false climate solutions' rooted in capitalism, neocolonialism, and extractivism. It asserts that these mechanisms often violate the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities, leading to land theft and environmental harm, and provides a framework to help these communities protect their rights and territories.

The document is a 'zine' collecting conversations and educational tools from young members of Friends of the Earth in Africa and Europe. It focuses on strengthening inter-regional solidarity, addressing systemic oppressions like patriarchy and colonialism, and overcoming barriers to youth participation in environmental justice. Key components include learning tools for analyzing historical colonial relations and systemic oppression, as well as personal testimonies on the impacts of industrial pollution in South Africa and land grabbing in Liberia.

Friends of the Earth International calls for a transition away from a neoliberal economic model and the rejection of market-based climate solutions. The report emphasizes the moral and legal obligation of rich nations to lead emission cuts and provide public funding for adaptation and mitigation in the Global South, while warning against the risks of carbon markets and the 'Green Economy' framework if it ignores social justice.

The document critiques the 'green economy' as a mechanism for financial institutions and multinationals to commodify nature. It argues that market-based solutions, such as carbon markets and biodiversity offsets, lead to 'green grabbing,' the marginalization of indigenous communities, and the evasion of corporate environmental responsibility. The report advocates for the recognition of ecological debt, the protection of common goods through community management, and a radical shift toward sustainable societies based on social and ecological justice rather than market logic.

The document argues that community forest management (CFM) is a more effective strategy for forest conservation and poverty reduction than industrial logging or strict state protection. It identifies seven key rights—state obligations, self-determination, consultation, territorial rights, livelihoods and economic development, women's rights, and cultural/traditional knowledge—and maps these against international legal frameworks to provide a tool for advocates to pressure governments for the legal recognition of community-led forestry.

The report critiques the extension of market economies to ecosystems, specifically targeting carbon markets, biodiversity offsets, and water trading. It argues that these mechanisms allow corporations to avoid genuine emission reductions and environmental protection by paying for compensation certificates. The text highlights the role of financial institutions like the World Bank and Caisse des dépôts et consignations in structuring these markets, and warns that such financialization leads to land grabbing, the marginalization of indigenous populations, and the deregulation of environmental laws.

The document describes climate change as a result of an industrial development model dependent on fossil fuels and environmental destruction. It highlights the disproportionate responsibility of wealthy nations and the severe vulnerability of poor regions, particularly Africa. The text argues that government inaction is driven by the influence of powerful corporations and calls for a systemic shift toward renewable energy, forest protection, and sustainable food systems, while demanding that rich nations pay their 'climate debt' to poorer countries.

Friends of the Earth International (FoEI) opposes REDD, arguing that carbon markets and financial incentives fail to address the root causes of climate change and instead lead to 'green grabbing' and the erosion of traditional forest management. The document contends that REDD shifts responsibility away from industrialized nations and threatens the land rights and cultural values of forest-dependent populations. FoEI proposes an alternative based on the legal recognition of Indigenous and community land rights, collective forest management, and a structural transition away from fossil fuels based on climate justice.

The report advocates for climate justice, asserting that wealthy nations bear a historical responsibility for emissions and must provide financial and technological support to developing regions. It critiques market-based mechanisms like carbon credits and biofuels, labeling them as 'false solutions' that protect corporate profits while harming local communities and ecosystems. The text provides specific examples of climate impacts in Nigeria, Kiribati, and the Himalayas, and proposes a transition for Europe toward a low-carbon society based on drastic emission reductions and lifestyle changes.

The document argues that the financialization of nature allows companies to bypass strict environmental regulations through biodiversity offsets and carbon credits. It details the emergence of a 'conservation industry' comprising specialized NGOs, think tanks, and financial institutions that create the standards and accounting methods necessary for this system. The report highlights how extractive industries, aviation, and agribusiness use these mechanisms to access protected areas and 'greenwash' their activities, while noting that actual private investment in conservation remains a small fraction of global financial flows.