Search Climate Insights Directory

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 report finds that companies purchasing voluntary carbon credits are generally climate leaders who outperform non-buyers in emissions transparency, target ambition, and direct decarbonization investments, suggesting credits are used as a supplement to, rather than a replacement for, internal emissions reductions.

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 argues that a carbon price exceeding US$ 20 per ton of CO2 captured would make forest restoration more profitable than cattle ranching across most of the Brazilian Amazon. This mechanism could capture 16 Gt CO2 through restoration and avoid 32 Gt CO2 from deforestation over 30 years, totaling 48 Gt CO2. The study uses a dynamic spatial model to show that such payments would generate US$ 320 billion in revenue, preventing the forest from reaching a tipping point and transforming the region from a net carbon emitter to a carbon sink.

The voluntary carbon market (VCM) is currently hindered by subjective data, lack of transparency, and burdensome processes. To realize its potential for climate finance, the market must shift toward objective measurement using digital and satellite technologies, adopt transparent pricing, and establish a consensus on credit quality through improved certification and governance models.

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 carbon credit rating agencies BeZero, Calyx, Renoster, and Sylvera, highlighting a systemic lack of standardised quality assessment in the carbon market. It notes that while these agencies aim to increase transparency and mitigate risk, their approaches vary significantly, particularly in the use of algorithmic analysis versus direct testing and the treatment of additionality and leakage.

The Corporate Climate Finance Playbook, developed by the Climate Policy Initiative and Salesforce, argues that meeting global climate targets requires corporations to move beyond piecemeal efforts toward an integrated climate finance strategy. The document categorizes financial tools into capital deployment, capital management, and capital raising, providing a decision-making flowchart to match instruments to the innovation stage of a project and the company's risk appetite. It highlights best practices from companies like Autodesk, Microsoft, and Cisco Foundation, emphasizing the use of blended finance to de-risk early-stage technologies and scale existing solutions.

The report argues that a carbon price of US$ 20 per ton of CO2 captured would incentivize a shift from cattle ranching to forest restoration in the Brazilian Amazon. This transition could capture 16 Gt of CO2 and avoid 32 Gt of emissions over 30 years, generating US$ 320 billion in revenue. The analysis contrasts this with a historical implicit valuation of US$ 5.76 per ton, which the authors suggest leads toward a critical tipping point of deforestation.

Climate Resilient Landscape Finance (CRLF) is an innovative umbrella facility combining microfinance, private debt, and technical assistance to address the lack of bankability for sustainable land use in African conservation areas. The instrument aims to mobilize USD 12 million in capital to support local landowners and landscape management companies, leveraging international carbon and biodiversity credit markets to create self-sustaining conservation economies. A pilot phase will begin in the Northern Maasai Mara, Kenya, with plans to expand across Eastern and Southern Africa.

Octavia Carbon is a Kenya-based startup developing Direct Air Carbon Capture (DACC) technology to remove CO2 from the atmosphere for permanent storage or industrial use. The company aims to disrupt the high cost of DACC by utilizing Kenya's natural endowments, specifically the high-porosity basaltic rock of the Rift Valley for storage and waste heat from geothermal power for energy. By the end of 2024, Octavia Carbon intends to produce at least one machine per day, reaching a capacity of approximately 40,000 tonnes of CO2 per year. The company projects a cost per tonne of CO2 between $300 and $500, significantly lower than current global ranges of $775 to $1,200, positioning it as a potential global cost leader by mid-decade.

Reclaim Finance argues that GFANZ's guidance on coal managed phase-outs (MPOs) in Asia Pacific must be significantly strengthened to ensure alignment with a 1.5°C scenario, protect civil society, and avoid 'junk' carbon offsets. The organization recommends that financial institutions end all support for new coal infrastructure and that MPOs prioritize the closure of the oldest plants by 2040, without diverting funds toward retrofits or carbon-intensive alternatives like biomass and ammonia.

The NewClimate Institute introduces the concept of climate contributions as a financial commitment to support global climate action without claiming to offset or neutralise a company's own emissions. This approach is presented as a necessary alternative to traditional carbon offsetting, which the authors argue can undermine decarbonisation progress.

Climate finance for agrifood systems is critically low, representing only 4.3% of total project-level climate finance in 2019/20. The report highlights a massive investment gap, noting that current flows must increase at least sevenfold to meet conservative transition needs. While agriculture and forestry dominate project-level funding, essential mitigation areas like food loss and low-carbon diets are severely underfunded. The analysis reveals a heavy reliance on public funding (85%) and significant geographic disparities, with East Asia and the Pacific receiving the most finance, while South Asia and Latin America remain underserved relative to their emissions and vulnerability. The report advocates for repurposing harmful agricultural subsidies and leveraging private capital to scale climate-resilient and low-carbon food systems.