Search Climate Insights Directory

The paper analyzes 20 years of independent forest monitoring (IFM) in the Congo Basin, noting that while IFM has led to the withdrawal of illegal forest titles and improved governance, its activity levels have declined since its early years. It suggests that the IFM model should be expanded to agricultural commodities and REDD+ projects, supported by institutionalized policy reform and long-term funding.

The report finds that while developed countries exceeded their US$ 30 billion Fast-Start Finance (FSF) target, much of the funding was not 'new and additional' and was heavily skewed toward mitigation over adaptation. Only 18% of FSF supported adaptation, and the distribution of funds closely mirrored existing Official Development Assistance (ODA) patterns rather than correlating with greenhouse gas emissions or country vulnerability. The study highlights a lack of transparency in reporting and suggests that future finance should better target vulnerable countries and avoid funding climate-incompatible development.

Germany exceeded its Fast-Start Finance (FSF) pledge for 2010-2012, providing EUR 1.29 billion for climate action in developing countries. The funding was split roughly evenly between bilateral and multilateral channels, with a primary focus on mitigation (45%) and REDD+ (26%), while adaptation received 28%. Most resources were allocated to Africa (34%) and Asia (29%). Germany is noted for publishing a specific definition of "new and additional" finance, counting funds committed above a 2009 baseline or generated via EU ETS auctioning revenues. The paper recommends increasing adaptation support, improving reporting on actual disbursements, and diversifying funding sources beyond emission-trading revenues.

The document is the eighth in a series of updates reviewing the readiness documents of countries participating in the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) and the UN-REDD Programme. It specifically evaluates the governance frameworks, transparency, and accountability measures in the R-PPs of the Central African Republic and Colombia, as well as the NPD of Nigeria.

The document analyzes 26 submissions from 14 Parties and 12 Observers to the SBSTA concerning the design and implementation of a safeguard information system (SIS) for REDD+. To clarify the diverse inputs, the World Resources Institute and ClientEarth categorized the submissions into four areas: the role of the SIS, the type of information required, methods for collecting and providing information, and other elements of the international safeguard system.

The document reviews the initial phase of the World Bank's Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF), specifically examining how 25 approved Readiness Plan Idea Notes (R-PINs) integrate forest governance. It argues that while the FCPF's Readiness Mechanism focuses on technical capacities like monitoring and reference scenarios, addressing underlying governance issues—such as land tenure and law enforcement—is essential for achieving lasting emission reductions from REDD activities in developing countries.

The paper evaluates the differences between national deforestation estimates reported by REDD+ countries and the Global Forest Change (GFC) data. It finds that GFC data serve as an unbiased proxy for tropical deforestation and are significantly cheaper to produce than national systems, suggesting that adapting global data for national reporting could improve sustainability and comparability.

The paper examines the data needs for monitoring national forest emission reduction strategies, arguing that tracking metrics beyond just emissions reductions is necessary for effective policy design, securing finance, and domestic decision-making. Using illegal logging in Peru and Indonesia as a focal point, it explores the differences between domestic and international measurement, reporting, and verification (MRV) requirements.

The paper analyzes the roles of OPIC and Ex-Im Bank in climate finance, noting that together they intermediated 37% (over $2 billion) of total US assistance to developing countries for climate activities between 2010 and 2012. It argues that tailoring financial instruments—such as loans, guarantees, and insurance—to specific sectoral risks can unlock private finance. The authors highlight a complementary relationship where OPIC often acts as a first-mover for high-risk projects, while Ex-Im Bank provides inexpensive concessional debt for more established players. Recommendations include increasing instrument flexibility, addressing institutional barriers like employee incentives and staffing, and improving coordination between public financial institutions to streamline due diligence and co-financing.

The jurisdictional approach (JA) is defined as a government-led, comprehensive strategy for forest and land use within legally defined territories, typically implemented at state or provincial levels. Experience from over a decade of implementation in the tropics indicates that success depends on multi-stakeholder processes, cross-sectoral policies aligned with implementation capacity, and strong political leadership.

The document outlines five primary concerns raised by local and indigenous communities in Cameroon and the DRC regarding the implementation of Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD), emphasizing that a lack of such perspectives may hinder the development of effective measures in the Congo Basin.

Japan committed USD 15 billion to fast-start finance (FSF), representing nearly half of the total pledged by developed countries for 2010-2012. However, the analysis finds that a significant portion of this funding may not be 'new and additional,' as it reflects pre-existing pledges and standard development finance commitments. The funding is heavily weighted toward mitigation (70%), primarily through loans for infrastructure, and includes 'clean' fossil fuel projects. Transparency is limited by disaggregated reporting, making it difficult to independently identify many projects.

The document examines Norway's fast-start finance (FSF) contributions between 2010 and 2011, noting that Norway is one of the largest contributors relative to its economy. While the majority of funds supported mitigation, specifically REDD+ activities, the paper highlights a lack of a comprehensive project list for all FSF, which hinders independent scrutiny. It recommends that Norway disclose project-level spending and harmonize reporting with other donors and multilateral institutions.

The paper argues that current REDD+ financing is often ad hoc and donor-driven, risking the capacity of national institutions. It recommends improving the quality of bilateral and multilateral support, investing in national and subnational capacity, and developing performance metrics that extend beyond emission reductions to support policy implementation.

The document outlines a roadmap for REDD+ countries to establish national systems that protect biodiversity and the rights of local people while reducing greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation. It proposes a four-part framework consisting of goals, functions, rules, and institutions to manage social and environmental risks. The report emphasizes that governments should first assess existing rules and institutions to identify gaps before creating new laws or agencies, noting that the specific design of these systems must be tailored to national circumstances.

The document highlights the increasing demand for credible forest monitoring to meet climate and sustainable development goals, noting that while satellite and remote sensing technologies have advanced, a gap remains between research capabilities and actual implementation in tropical forest countries. It warns that the proliferation of diverse monitoring systems may lead to redundancy and confusion.

The document argues that while REDD+ countries are integrating governance arrangements into existing institutions, they rely too heavily on informal 'soft' accountability mechanisms and lack functional grievance redress systems. It emphasizes the need for explicitly defined power relationships between government institutions and the creation of legal frameworks with clear performance standards and sanctions to ensure accountability among stakeholders.

Brazil aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 36.1 to 38.9 percent from a projected baseline by 2020, with a heavy focus on the agriculture, forestry, and other land use (AFOLU) sector as it is the country's largest emission source. The document evaluates three primary initiatives: the Action Plan to Prevent and Control Deforestation in the Amazon (PPCDAm), which has slowed deforestation but faces challenges from market demand for soy and beef and weak law enforcement; the Action Plan to Prevent and Control Deforestation and Fire in the Cerrado (PPCerrado), which targets a 40 percent reduction in deforestation by 2020; and the Low-Carbon Agriculture Plan (ABC Plan), which saw a significant increase in funded projects from five in 2010-11 to 5,038 in 2011-12. The author argues that policy effectiveness could be improved through better civil society engagement, enhanced monitoring and evaluation, improved inter-institutional coordination, and clearer long-term funding.

The document argues that REDD+ programs must integrate legal, financial, and reputational accountability tools to ensure governments meet social and environmental objectives beyond greenhouse gas emission reductions. Drawing on case studies from Brazil and Indonesia, it identifies three primary functions of accountability tools: facilitating negotiations for reform, protecting people and the environment during policy implementation, and enabling the enforcement of agreed rules. The author suggests that REDD+ designers should explicitly include civil society in monitoring and oversight roles and build upon existing, effective laws rather than layering new programs over ineffective ones.

The research examines three Indigenous matrilineal communities—the Wayuu in Colombia, the Bribri in Costa Rica, and the Guna in Panama—to identify risks to women's land tenure resulting from climate actions. It finds that women face potential loss of land entitlements, disruption of livelihoods, and erosion of matrilineal culture, largely due to inadequate consultation processes and a failure to account for traditional gendered tenure systems. The paper argues that climate actions, such as wind park development, REDD+ negotiations, and climate-induced relocation, risk eroding customary rights and social support systems when they ignore differential tenure systems and power asymmetries.