Search Climate Insights Directory

The report finds that comprehensive requirements for benefit sharing arrangements are not common practice across major carbon crediting programmes. While some projects, particularly those under Plan Vivo, demonstrate best practices by providing detailed monitoring reports on monetary and non-monetary benefits, many others provide only procedural information or limited evidence of actual implementation. Major carbon crediting programmes like Verra (VCS), CAR, and ACR have largely resisted mandatory disclosure of benefit sharing terms, citing commercial confidentiality and a lack of institutional expertise to monitor downstream financial flows.

The report argues that nature-based solutions (NBS) and carbon offset schemes often serve as 'escapes' for major polluters to continue emitting greenhouse gases while facilitating land grabbing and violating human rights. It provides numerous case studies across Africa, Asia-Pacific, Europe, and the Americas, highlighting systemic issues such as inflated carbon baselines, lack of free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC), and the failure of projects to deliver promised carbon reductions or community benefits. Specific examples include REDD+ projects in Gabon and Zimbabwe, soil carbon initiatives in Kenya and the US, and cookstove offsets in India.

The document is a curated list of resources published between 2005 and 2023 that challenge the validity and ethics of various climate mitigation strategies. It categorizes these resources into reports and briefings, blogs, articles, press releases, and other media. The listed materials focus on the perceived dangers of carbon markets, geoengineering, and corporate-led 'net zero' strategies, often framing them as 'false solutions' that may facilitate continued fossil fuel use or result in 'green colonialism'.

The document is a resource list compiled by Friends of the Earth International, cataloguing various publications that challenge the legitimacy of 'false climate solutions'. It highlights materials focusing on the risks of net-zero targets, nature-based solutions, carbon markets, and geoengineering, often linking these mechanisms to land grabbing and corporate greenwashing.

The paper evaluates the impact of forest fires on the permanence of six REDD+ projects certified under the Verified Carbon Standard (VCS) Program. Using remote sensing, documentation analysis, and surveys, the authors found that while some loss events and one reversal occurred, credit permanence was maintained due to the use of capitalized buffer pools. The study also suggests that NCS projects can provide fire-mitigation benefits that exceed minimum carbon crediting requirements.

The Green Climate Fund's Accreditation Panel recommends the re-accreditation of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) for a second term, maintaining its scope for medium-sized projects and medium environmental and social risk (Category B). The assessment confirms FAO's strong technical expertise in adaptation, REDD+, and the blue economy, and its ability to implement GCF's gender and environmental and social policies. While generally compliant, the Panel identified a gap in explicit policy statements regarding Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism (AML/CFT), making the re-accreditation conditional upon the formal approval of an AML/CFT policy or the inclusion of consistent statements within its prohibited practices policies.

The 2023 Forest Declaration Assessment finds the world is off track to eliminate deforestation and forest degradation by 2030. In 2022, global gross deforestation reached 6.6 million hectares, a 4% increase from 2021. While some countries like Indonesia and Malaysia show progress, massive losses continue in tropical Latin America and the Caribbean. The report highlights a critical funding gap, noting that 'gray' public finance (subsidies driving deforestation) vastly outweighs 'green' finance. It also emphasizes the ongoing violence against environmental defenders and the systemic lack of legal recognition for Indigenous Peoples' and local communities' land rights.

The study finds that while forest fires are a threat, the VCS Program's pooled buffer account is adequately capitalized to guarantee credit permanence. Analysis of six REDD+ projects shows that some, such as the Katingan Peatland Restoration Project, generate fire-mitigation co-benefits through advanced management practices, while others do not. Only one reversal was identified across 190 AFOLU projects, which was fully compensated by the buffer pool.

The document asserts that REDD+ forestry credits are not equivalent to emission reductions due to systematic failures in five key areas: overestimated baselines, underestimated permanence risks, underestimated leakage, exaggerated carbon accounting, and weak safeguards. It concludes that current offsetting is unfit for purpose and recommends rigorous scrutiny, independent data verification, and a ban on using forest carbon storage to offset fossil fuel emissions.

The report identifies critical methodological failures in Verra's REDD+ carbon credit system, specifically regarding overestimated baselines, underestimated leakages, inflated carbon accounting, and ignored permanence risks. It concludes that these credits do not represent real emission reductions and should not be used to offset fossil fuel emissions, recommending a shift from 'offsetting' to 'contribution' funding for forest conservation.

The report identifies critical methodological failures in REDD+ forestry projects certified by Verra, specifically regarding baselines, leakage, carbon accounting, permanence, and safeguards. It argues that project developers exploit methodological flexibility to inflate emission reductions, resulting in low-quality carbon credits that do not represent real climate benefits. The document concludes that REDD+ credits are not equivalent to emission reductions and should not be used to offset fossil fuel emissions.

The report identifies systemic failures in Verra's REDD+ methodologies, specifically regarding baseline inflation, underestimated leakage, exaggerated carbon accounting, and underestimated reversal risks. It argues that these flaws allow project developers to maximize credit issuance through 'convenience' selections rather than scientific accuracy. The document concludes that REDD+ credits do not represent real emission reductions and should not be used to offset fossil fuel emissions, recommending a shift toward 'contribution' claims and stricter, independent oversight.

Carbon Market Watch has filed a formal complaint with Verra based on research from the University of California (Berkeley) that identifies 'major deficiencies in project integrity and rigour' across several REDD+ projects. The document alleges that Verra and its validation/verification bodies (VVBs) failed to uphold standards, resulting in the issuance of carbon credits that are not 'environmentally sound'. Key failures cited include non-conservative forest carbon accounting, lack of transparency in allometric equations, inadequate community consultation, and the underestimation of natural reversal risks. The complainant calls for an internal investigation, a halt on credit issuance for the affected projects, and the cancellation of wrongfully issued credits.

The report finds that REDD+ projects under Verra's methodologies systematically over-credit their climate benefits due to inflated baselines, underestimated leakage, and exaggerated forest carbon stocks. It further argues that social safeguards are often treated as a 'check-box activity,' failing to protect vulnerable forest communities from displacement and rights violations. The authors conclude that REDD+ is ill-suited for generating carbon offsets and recommend a shift toward a contributions-based approach and rights-based safeguards.

The document evaluates four carbon credit rating agencies (BeZero, Calyx Global, Sylvera, and Renoster), finding that while their frameworks generally support higher market integrity, significant discrepancies exist in how they assess additionality, non-permanence, and leakage. These differences can lead to starkly contrasting ratings for the same project, potentially confusing buyers and risking the legitimization of low-quality credits. The brief recommends that agencies adopt a 100-year reversal risk period, incorporate safeguards into overall quality scores, and increase transparency of their frameworks. It further advises buyers to move away from 'carbon neutrality' claims and instead use ratings to understand the specific trade-offs and nuances of the credits they purchase.

The report evaluates the methodologies of four carbon credit rating agencies (BeZero, Calyx, Renoster, and Sylvera) to determine if they deliver on claims of increasing market transparency and integrity. Using the Carbon Credit Quality Initiative (CCQI) as a benchmark, the analysis finds that Calyx employs the most stringent approach, while BeZero and Sylvera are rated as adequate. Renoster's data-centric, algorithmic approach is deemed incomparable to the others. Key findings highlight significant differences in how agencies treat additionality as a limiting factor, the inclusion of leakage in overall scores, and the transparency of their rating justifications. The report recommends greater alignment with financial rating standards, mandatory inclusion of leakage in final scores, and increased public disclosure of project-specific frameworks.

The document provides a comprehensive legal framework for environmental and land rights defenders in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), detailing the risks they face from extractive industries, agribusiness, and conservation efforts. It outlines fundamental rights guaranteed by the DRC Constitution and international treaties, and lists specific judicial and non-judicial mechanisms for seeking justice, including the role of civil society and international bodies like the UN and the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights.

The report by Friends of the Earth International outlines a framework for systemic change to address the interconnected crises of climate change, biodiversity loss, and social inequality. It identifies neoliberal capitalism, patriarchy, and colonialism as the root causes of these crises and proposes 'people's solutions' centered on gender justice, democratic energy systems, food sovereignty, community forest management, and a distributive economy. The document emphasizes the need to dismantle corporate power and reclaim political agency to ensure a future based on social, environmental, and gender justice.

The report argues that a 'New Economy for the Brazilian Amazon' (NEA), characterized by zero deforestation and a robust bioeconomy, would provide the most equitable economic growth for Brazil. By 2050, this transition could increase the regional GDP by BRL 40 billion and create 312,000 additional jobs compared to a reference scenario. The study emphasizes that eliminating deforestation alone is insufficient to meet Paris Agreement targets; it must be coupled with the decarbonization of agriculture, livestock, and the energy matrix. The transition requires an estimated BRL 2.56 trillion in additional investment by 2050, representing 1.8% of Brazil's national GDP per year. Key recommendations include removing fossil fuel subsidies, redirecting rural credit toward low-carbon practices, and scaling a bioeconomy based on traditional indigenous knowledge and standing forests.

The PIDACC-Zambezi programme seeks USD 100 million from the Green Climate Fund (GCF) to complement a total budget of USD 312.3 million. It targets the Zambezi Watercourse, where climate change is causing increased drought, flooding, and reduced hydropower potential. The programme focuses on four components: building community resilience through infrastructure and agribusiness, strengthening integrated landscape management, enhancing adaptive and institutional capacity, and programme coordination. Key targets include benefiting 3.79 million direct beneficiaries, restoring 970,000 hectares of degraded land, and reducing emissions by 37.1 million tCO2eq. The initiative emphasizes the use of digital technologies, carbon farming via the Boomitra model, and the establishment of a Direct Credit Window to de-risk private sector investment in agribusiness.