Search Climate Insights Directory

The paper traces the evolution of Indigenous Peoples' engagement with the UNFCCC, highlighting the transition from marginal participation to the recognition of rights in the Paris Agreement. It argues that while institutional progress has been made, the actual integration of Indigenous knowledge into climate policy remains limited and often tokenistic.

The IAI Science Diplomacy Center (SDC) Advisory Board met in March 2023 to refine the Center's strategic framework and identify flagship activities. The SDC aims to enhance the capacity of IAI member states to address global change through a science diplomacy knowledge hub, regional training for policymakers, and improved science-policy communication. Proposed priority actions include landscape analyses of scientific information flow in government and the development of training courses on negotiation and science diplomacy. The SDC intends to co-design its three-year working plan with member states, utilizing engagement at CoP 31 to ensure initiatives meet regional needs.

The Scientific Diplomacy Center (SDC) of the Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research (IAI) is establishing a framework to strengthen the science-policy interface across the Americas. The center aims to provide member states with scientific evidence to address global change challenges, including food security, water resources, and disaster risk management. Key proposed initiatives include developing a scientific diplomacy knowledge hub, creating training courses for policymakers and negotiators, and conducting outreach to analyze how scientific information is translated into policy. The SDC plans to co-design its three-year priority activities with IAI member states, with a specific engagement plan for COP 31 to ensure these initiatives meet regional needs.

The project aims to reduce GHG emissions by 4.6 million tCO2eq over four years and increase the resilience of 273,700 direct beneficiaries and 2.1 million hectares of ecosystems in Northern Lao PDR. It focuses on three components: strengthening the enabling environment for REDD+ through climate-informed land use planning and sustainable finance; promoting deforestation-free agricultural practices and supporting agri-MSMEs via matching grants; and implementing sustainable forest landscape management and restoration in village and conservation forests.

Carbon Market Watch argues that Article 6.4 methodologies must shift from incremental benefits to transformational activities to avoid eroding climate ambition. The organization advocates for the use of dynamic baseline contraction factors (BCFs) that trend toward zero by 2050, the implementation of 'negative lists' to exclude non-additional or fossil-fuel-linked projects, and the rejection of short-term sequestration activities as offsets due to non-permanence risks.

Carbon Market Watch urges Verra to move away from the 'tonne-for-tonne' offsetting model, particularly for AFOLU projects, due to permanence risks and the potential for corporate greenwashing. The submission recommends adopting a 'contribution model' where finance supports climate action without claiming neutrality. It also calls for greater financial transparency regarding intermediaries, a more accessible and independent grievance mechanism for indigenous peoples and local communities, and the banning of methodologies that support fossil fuel infrastructure.

Carbon Market Watch (CMW) urges the Article 6.4 Supervisory Body to avoid shortcuts in developing recommendations for removal activities, emphasizing that temporary carbon storage should not be equated with permanent emission reductions. CMW argues that current forestry and land-use credits lack permanence, and that buffer pools are insufficient to manage reversal risks. The organization specifically opposes the inclusion of tonne-year accounting, claiming it creates a false equivalence between temporary storage and permanent removals, and criticizes the proposed definition of removals for including 'products' and 'processes' rather than focusing solely on outcomes.

The report evaluates grievance mechanisms across various carbon market standards and funds, using UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights as a benchmark. It finds that most voluntary carbon market (VCM) standards have opaque or insufficient mechanisms, while the Green Climate Fund (GCF) and Gold Standard provide more robust models. The authors recommend that the Article 6.4 mechanism prioritize accessibility, transparency through public repositories, independence, and the ability to provide binding remedies, including the power to overturn Supervisory Body decisions.

A review of voluntary carbon market standards found that most have inadequate or non-existent grievance mechanisms, leaving local and indigenous communities vulnerable. Only Gold Standard and the Green Climate Fund's Independent Redress Mechanism were rated as having good mechanisms. The report details failures in accessibility, transparency, and independence for standards like Verra, CAR, and ACR, and notes that the Global Carbon Council lacks a mechanism entirely. It provides a framework of good practices and specific recommendations for these standards and the Paris Agreement's Article 6.4 Supervisory Body.

The Stakeholder Toolkit is a directory of guidance documents and institutional partners designed to assist government entities at various levels in managing forests. It categorizes resources by their utility for national versus local governments, highlighting tools for gender analysis, poverty alleviation, and jurisdictional sustainability. The toolkit also lists key global forums and organizations, such as the UN Forum on Forests and the Global Environmental Facility, that provide funding, research, and policy frameworks for forest conservation and sustainable development.

The Stakeholder Toolkit serves as a directory of guidance materials and institutional networks for government entities. It categorizes resources into general forest governance tools, specific reports on jurisdictional sustainability and REDD+ strategies, and a list of international forums and programs such as the Global Environmental Facility and the Governor’s Climate and Forest Task Force. The toolkit distinguishes between resources tailored for national governments and those designed for local-level officials and subnational entities.

The compendium outlines the technical requirements and eligible activities for the Green Climate Fund's Simplified Approval Process (SAP), which is designed to reduce the time and effort for preparing, reviewing, and approving small-scale projects (up to USD 25 million) with minimal environmental and social risks. It provides sectoral guidelines for agriculture, ecosystems, water security, cities, energy efficiency, land use, REDD+, renewable energy, and transport, detailing how to achieve a 'paradigm shift' and measure impact using the GCF's Integrated Results Management Framework (IRMF).

The Green Climate Fund (GCF) has published a technical compendium to streamline the preparation of funding proposals under the Simplified Approval Process (SAP). The SAP is designed to reduce the time and effort required for the preparation, review, and approval of small-scale activities, specifically targeting developing countries, Least Developed Countries (LDCs), and Small Island Developing States (SIDS). To be eligible for SAP, projects must request a GCF contribution of no more than 25 million USD and present minimal or no environmental and social risks. The guide provides detailed sectoral frameworks for agriculture, ecosystems, water security, cities, energy efficiency, forestry, REDD+, renewable energy, and transport, outlining eligible activities, indicators for measuring impact, and examples of 'paradigm shifts' required for GCF investment.

As of 31 December 2022, the GCF has approved 209 funding proposals totaling USD 11.4 billion, with 182 projects under implementation. The portfolio maintains a near-equal balance between mitigation (51%) and adaptation (49%) in grant equivalent terms. The Readiness Programme has approved 649 grants totaling USD 468 million. While cumulative disbursements for funded activities reached USD 3 billion, the GCF reports implementation delays primarily attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic and other operational challenges. The report also details the status of condition fulfillment for approved projects and identifies specific activities requiring restructuring or cancellation.

The report examines the early exploration phase of the Cabora Bassa Project (Special Grant Permit 4571) in Zimbabwe, highlighting significant gaps in transparency and community engagement. While the project has identified substantial potential liquid natural gas reserves, the authors find a lack of meaningful consultation with local populations in the Muzarabani and Mbire districts, creating an information asymmetry between investors and residents. The document warns of potential risks including securitization, human rights abuses, and environmental degradation in a region already highly vulnerable to climate-induced flooding and drought. It recommends making production and exploration agreements public, conducting an independent review of the Environmental Impact Assessment, and implementing an equity-based benefit-sharing model for local communities.

The document outlines a 36-month readiness program implemented by the Global Green Growth Institute (GGGI) to address financial barriers in Mexico's rural and northern border regions. Key objectives include the GCF accreditation of the North American Development Bank (NADB) and Trust Funds Related to Agriculture (FIRA), the creation of a green finance transparency system, and the development of a National Carbon Policy. It specifically targets water and sanitation infrastructure in northern states and sustainable landscape management via REDD+ results-based payments. Additionally, the proposal aims to empower subnational governments to issue thematic bonds and integrate environmental and social criteria into public-private partnerships (PPPs).

The Forest Territories Facility (FTF) is a proposed USD 160 million programme targeting 15 countries in Central Africa and the Gulf of Guinea. Managed by the Agence Française de Développement (AFD), the facility aims to maintain the extent and functionality of tropical forests through four paradigm-shift pathways: protecting biodiversity, promoting inclusive sustainable forest management, intensifying agriculture to achieve 'zero deforestation', and stabilizing land use. The programme employs a programmatic approach, combining national-level regulatory support with local landscape-based pilot projects. Funding is requested primarily from the Green Climate Fund (USD 120 million), utilizing a mix of grants and senior loans over a 20-year lifespan.

The report outlines a strategic framework for the Legal Amazon, arguing that the region's current crises—excessive deforestation, social instability, and environmental degradation—can be transformed into economic opportunities. It proposes a model based on 'zero deforestation' and territorial ordering, dividing the region into five distinct zones (Forest, Forest under Pressure, Deforested, Non-Forest/Cerrado, and Urban) to apply tailored public policies. Key economic pathways include carbon markets, forest restoration, bioeconomy, and increasing livestock productivity on already deforested lands.

The report argues that nature-based solutions (NbS) and carbon offsetting schemes often serve as a facade for corporate polluters to continue emitting 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 climate or social benefits. The document specifically critiques REDD+ projects, industrial tree plantations, and soil carbon programs for their lack of 'additionality' and their role in undermining food sovereignty and indigenous land rights.

The document argues that nature-based solutions (NBS) and carbon offsets often serve as a distraction for 'Big Polluters' to continue emitting while facilitating land grabs and violating Indigenous rights. It provides detailed evidence of inflated carbon baselines, lack of additionality, and social harms across Africa, Asia Pacific, Europe, Latin America, and North America. Key examples include REDD+ projects in Zimbabwe and Gabon that overestimated carbon savings, and soil carbon initiatives in the US and Kenya that threaten food sovereignty and traditional livelihoods. The report also critiques improved cookstove offsets for using flawed accounting to generate 'fake emission cuts'.