Search Climate Insights Directory

The 2024 Forest Declaration Assessment finds that the world is far from meeting its 2030 goals to stop deforestation and degradation. In 2023, 6.37 million hectares of forest were permanently lost, with tropical Asia and Africa seeing significant increases. The report highlights that unsustainable production of agricultural commodities and minerals remains the primary driver of loss, often impacting Indigenous Peoples and local communities. While some progress is noted in Brazil and Indonesia, and through new EU regulations like the EUDR, global efforts are hampered by a massive gap between 'green' and 'grey' financing, with trillions in harmful subsidies continuing to incentivize forest destruction.

The 2024 Forest Declaration Assessment finds that the world is off track to meet 2030 forest goals, with 6.37 million hectares of forest permanently lost in 2023. Deforestation is primarily driven by commodity production, including agriculture and mining, with significant demand from industrialized nations like China, the EU, and the U.S. While some progress has been made in forest law enforcement and the establishment of protected areas, the report highlights a massive gap between 'green' and 'gray' finance, noting that environmentally harmful subsidies reach USD 2.6 trillion annually. The assessment emphasizes the critical need for rights-based governance and direct funding for Indigenous Peoples and local communities to ensure sustainable forest management.

The Global Resilience Partnership (GRP) has invested over US$45 million in resilience innovations across the Global South, supporting 7 million people. The 2024 portfolio highlights several specific projects: the Near East Foundation's community-based credit systems in Sudan; Mountain Harvest's regenerative coffee farming in Uganda; MetaMeta's 'Green Roads for Water' initiative in Kenya and Ethiopia; Farm to Feed's digital marketplace for surplus produce in Kenya; FSPN Africa's carbon farming in Kenya and Tanzania; ROOH's climate-resilient housing in India; Mahila Housing Trust's heat action plans in India, Bangladesh, and Nepal; and Centro Sabiá's greywater reuse and agroforestry in Brazil.

The report outlines the potential for green mini-grids to provide electricity to millions in Africa, emphasizing the need for patient growth capital, concessional finance, and robust regulatory frameworks. It highlights the shift toward 'energy services' models that integrate productive use of energy (PURE) to increase profitability and the critical need for domestic workforce skilling and technological innovation to reduce costs.

The report provides a snapshot of the implementation of the Brazilian Forest Code in 2023, highlighting the roles of the Rural Environmental Registry (CAR) and the Environmental Compliance Program (PRA). While some states like Minas Gerais, Pará, and São Paulo have made significant strides through automated analysis tools and improved communication with landowners, the overall process remains bottlenecked at the analysis stage. The document also details the registration of traditional territories and the introduction of a specific module for agrarian reform settlement plots.

The Climate Action Tracker finds that warming projections have not improved since 2021, with current government 2030 targets leading to 2.5°C of warming. The briefing argues that 'abated' fossil fuel strategies and techno-fixes like CCS are insufficient, calling instead for a full fossil fuel phase-out and specific 'must haves' for 2035 NDCs, including tripling renewables and cutting fossil fuel production by 40% by 2030.

A joint statement by 18 organizations asserting that voluntary carbon markets are a critical but underutilized source of climate finance. It advocates for the adoption of high-integrity standards, specifically highlighting the Voluntary Carbon Market Integrity Initiative (VCMI) and the Integrity Council on Voluntary Carbon Markets (ICVCM), to ensure carbon credits complement rather than replace direct corporate emissions reductions.

The author contends that voluntary carbon markets, particularly those utilizing 'high-integrity' credits, provide a viable pathway for businesses to meet climate commitments and incentivize further investment in supply chain decarbonisation.

The December 2023 update finds that global warming projections have stalled, with current policies leading to 2.7°C of warming by 2100. Even the most optimistic scenario, including all announced targets, results in 1.8°C, exceeding the 1.5°C Paris Agreement goal. The report highlights a growing implementation gap and warns that reliance on carbon capture and storage (CCS), e-fuels, and carbon offsets are 'false solutions' that delay necessary deep emission cuts. It urges governments to submit 1.5°C-aligned 2035 targets by February 2025 and to commit to a complete phase-out of fossil fuels.

The document provides a detailed overview of Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, distinguishing between the bilateral/multilateral trading of Internationally Transferred Mitigation Outcomes (ITMOs) under Article 6.2 and the UN-supervised global carbon market under Article 6.4. It highlights critical concerns regarding double counting, the lack of oversight in Article 6.2, the risks associated with transitioning legacy Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) projects, and the potential for 'emissions avoidance' to undermine environmental integrity. The guide outlines key priorities for COP28, including the need for stricter reporting rules, a code of conduct for confidentiality, and the establishment of independent grievance processes.

The document defines REDD+ and traces its evolution from a UNFCCC results-based finance mechanism to the use of private standards like the Voluntary Carbon Standard (VCS) for generating tradable carbon credits. It asserts that REDD+ projects, primarily located in the Global South, frequently overestimate their climate impact due to methodological flexibility in baseline setting, leakage, and permanence. The author argues that biological carbon storage cannot fully offset fossil fuel emissions and calls for more stringent, science-aligned standards and alternative financial avenues for forest conservation.

The document examines the risks and inefficiencies of direct air capture (DAC), focusing on Oxy's Stratos project in Texas. It argues that DAC is used as a 'smokescreen' to prolong fossil fuel extraction through enhanced oil recovery (EOR) and to capture public subsidies. The briefing highlights that DAC's projected global capacity is insignificant compared to total emissions and that its resource requirements—including water and toxic chemicals—pose environmental risks. It further critiques the influence of oil executives on COP28 leadership and the use of flawed carbon credits to justify continued pollution.

The report examines the implementation of the Public Forest Management Law (LGFP) in the Amazon, highlighting that federal and state concessions have fallen short of 2006 targets. Focusing on Pará, the study identifies governance failures—including frequent annulment of bidding processes, non-concession of areas, and contract terminations—driven by poor technical capacity and restrictive legal limits on the size and number of areas a single company can manage. It recommends enhancing staff training and removing legal restrictions on concession scale to attract more qualified operators.

The document examines the implementation of the Public Forest Management Law (LGFP) in the Amazon, noting that federal and state concessions have fallen short of targets. Focusing on Pará, the study identifies governance failures—including annulled bids, non-conceded areas, and terminated contracts—driven by administrative errors and restrictive legal limits on concession size and quantity. It recommends enhancing the training of public officials and removing legal caps on the area a single company can manage to attract more qualified operators.

The document examines the prevalence and quality of benefit-sharing agreements in the voluntary carbon market (VCM). Based on an Öko-Institut study, it finds that most carbon standards and projects lack clear, enforceable mechanisms to distribute financial and non-financial benefits to local communities. It highlights a critical confusion between 'benefit-sharing' and 'payment for results' (such as salaries or payments for ecosystem services), arguing that the former should be a separate share of profits. The brief concludes that the absence of uniform definitions and the opposition of major standards to mandatory rules hinder the equitable distribution of carbon credit revenues.

The document analyzes the lack of standardized rules for benefit-sharing agreements (BSAs) in the voluntary carbon market, finding that most carbon standards and projects fail to provide evidence of equitable benefit distribution to indigenous peoples and local communities (IPLCs).

The document reports on a study by the Öko-Institut commissioned by Carbon Market Watch, which found that benefit-sharing arrangements (BSAs) in the voluntary carbon market are largely insufficient and lack transparency. Analysis of five carbon standards and 47 projects revealed that most standards do not require BSAs, and very few projects provide evidence of distributing benefits beyond simple performance-based payments. The brief argues that performance payments (like salaries) should not be conflated with benefit-sharing and calls for the Integrity Council for Voluntary Carbon Markets (ICVCM) to mandate standardized, transparent BSA rules.

The report argues that current carbon dioxide removal (CDR) governance systems are flawed because they often treat carbon removal as equivalent to emission reductions, leading to 'mitigation deterrence'. It examines regulatory tools like emissions trading systems (ETS), tax credits, and public auctions, as well as voluntary carbon markets (VCMs). The authors conclude that CDR must be a complementary tool, not a substitute for decarbonization. They propose a policy framework based on three principles: precaution, 'do no significant harm' (DNSH), and the primacy of emission reductions. Key recommendations include separating emission reduction targets from CDR and land-based sequestration targets, implementing rigorous measurement, reporting, and verification (MRV) systems, and shifting from offsetting models to 'contributive approaches' or public procurement like reverse auctions.

Carbon Market Watch argues for stricter transparency, monitoring, and liability frameworks for carbon removal activities under the Article 6.4 mechanism. The organization proposes that all removal-based credits be publicly tagged, monitoring periods be extended to a minimum of 100 years, and a clear distinction be made between 'avoidable' and 'unavoidable' reversals to ensure project proponents bear appropriate financial liability. It further suggests the implementation of a minimum default risk rating for buffer pool contributions and the ability to permanently ban proponents who violate human rights or cause repeated avoidable reversals.

The guidance introduces the 'Triple A' framework (Ambition, Action, and Accountability) and five specific 'Hallmarks' to evaluate corporate transition plans. It emphasizes that credible plans must feature science-based, time-bound targets covering all material GHG emissions (Scopes 1, 2, and 3), detailed financial plans, and strong board-level governance. The document warns against the over-reliance on carbon offsets and the use of national NDCs as a substitute for sectoral science-based pathways, while advocating for annual third-party verification to ensure transparency and accountability.