Search Climate Insights Directory

The report argues that South Africa's policy of elevating trophy hunting as a conservation tool lacks empirical support and is economically insignificant compared to non-consumptive tourism. It highlights systemic governance failures, particularly in the Association of Private Nature Reserves (APNR), and suggests that the practice may actually harm biodiversity by targeting prime males and fragmenting landscapes. The author recommends a moratorium on trophy hunting for elephants, rhinos, leopards, lions, and giraffes, proposing a shift toward non-lethal alternatives like carbon and biodiversity credits.

Carbon Market Watch calls for a ban on corporate "net zero" and "carbon neutrality" claims, arguing that these terms are ambiguous and often mask inaction. The brief recommends that governments, particularly in the EU, require companies to report absolute emission reductions separately from external financing and to cover all value chain emissions (Scopes 1-3). It further warns against the use of low-quality carbon credits and the risk of double counting under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement.

The report evaluates the implementation of results-based forest finance, noting that while billions have been committed through REDD+ and international development finance, significant barriers remain. It highlights the growth of voluntary and compliance carbon markets and the emergence of public-private initiatives like the LEAF Coalition, while emphasizing that insufficient funding and high technical requirements hinder many countries from moving beyond the readiness phase to receiving actual payments.

The report argues that 'net zero' initiatives are being manipulated by 'Big Polluters' to create an illusion of climate action while continuing to expand fossil fuel portfolios. It specifically analyzes the Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market, the UN's High-Level Expert Group (HLEG) on Net-Zero Emissions Commitments of Non-State Entities, and the Race to Zero campaign. The analysis highlights how leadership roles in these bodies are held by individuals and organizations with deep ties to the fossil fuel industry, such as executives from banks that provide billions in fossil fuel financing and lawyers representing oil majors. For instance, the report notes that member banks of the Race to Zero, Net-Zero Banking Alliance, and GFANZ invested over US$500 billion in fossil fuels in 2021, with 25% directed toward new expansion. The document concludes that these initiatives allow polluters to greenwash their business plans and avoid meaningful regulation.

The report analyzes the links between 'Big Polluters' and three major net-zero initiatives: the Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market, the High-Level Expert Group (HLEG) on Net-Zero Commitments of Non-State Entities, and the Race to Zero. It argues that these initiatives are compromised by leaders and advisors with deep ties to the fossil fuel industry, allowing companies to 'greenwash' their business models while continuing to finance fossil fuel expansion. The document highlights specific instances where financial institutions and corporate executives within these bodies have a history of funding fossil fuels or opposing environmental justice, thereby questioning the credibility of the standards and guidelines these bodies produce.

The report analyzes the Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market (ICVCM), the UN High-Level Expert Group (HLEG), and the 'Race to Zero' alliance, asserting that these bodies are compromised by ties to the fossil fuel industry. It details how board members and advisors have professional links to companies like ExxonMobil, Shell, and BP, or financial institutions that continue to fund fossil fuel expansion. The document argues that these connections allow polluters to use 'net zero' frameworks as a tool for greenwashing and to avoid regulations that would require actual emission reductions at the source.

The 2022 Waste Market Intelligence Report by GreenCape identifies significant value-add potential in the waste sectors of Cape Town and the Western Cape, estimating a total potential of R320 million to R5 billion annually. The report highlights organic waste as the greatest opportunity, driven by provincial landfill restrictions aiming for 100% diversion by 2027 and the City of Cape Town's (CCT) goal of 100% organic waste diversion by 2027. Key drivers include rising landfill gate fees—with the CCT having the highest metropolitan fee in South Africa at R557 per tonne (excl. VAT)—and the implementation of mandatory Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) for paper, packaging, electronics, and lighting as of November 2021. The report details specific opportunities in black soldier fly larvae production, biogas, and composting, while noting barriers such as inadequate source separation and the lack of reliable e-waste data. It also outlines the CCT's planned investments in four new material recovery facilities (MRFs) and its strategic shift toward a circular waste economy.

The document highlights the critical role of infrastructure as a primary driver of both biodiversity loss and greenhouse gas emissions, noting that 79% of global emissions are attributed to the sector. It argues that because 75% of the infrastructure expected to exist by 2050 has not yet been built, there is a time-sensitive opportunity to align new development with nature-positive and net-zero outcomes. The brief specifically advocates for the inclusion of infrastructure in the goals and targets of the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), proposing specific language changes to prioritize the mitigation hierarchy and the restoration of the 70% of the planet not covered by the 30% conservation target. It further recommends that countries adopt full-cost accounting for environmental externalities and increase investment in nature-based infrastructure through flexible financing mechanisms.

The project aims to increase soil organic carbon (SOC) and reduce non-CO2 emissions (N2O and CH4) to benefit 63,697 small-scale farmers in Mexico. It employs a stratified approach across three clusters: adaptation-focused (red), combined adaptation and mitigation (orange), and mitigation-focused (green). The initiative includes strengthening institutional governance, deploying the 'Soil Doctors' capacity-building program, and establishing a national climate finance system featuring carbon credits and an 'SSM Seal' for certified sustainable products.

The EPAFLEC project aims to restore 6,000 hectares of degraded smallholder forests in North-West Rwanda by organizing farmers into Private Forest Management Units (PFMUs) and linking them to professional wood value chains. The project seeks to reduce pressure on forests by shifting 35,000 households—20,000 in Kigali and 15,000 in rural areas—from traditional charcoal and three-stone fires to wood pellets and improved cookstoves (ICS). It integrates private sector investment from SEAL and BioMassters Ltd to create a sustainable supply of raw materials for high-value wood products and clean fuels. The initiative also includes developing alternative incomes like beekeeping and establishing community revolving funds funded by carbon credits to ensure long-term sustainability and resilience for local communities.

Friends of the Earth International criticizes the COP26 deforestation pledge as a rebranding of failed initiatives like REDD+, asserting that it facilitates corporate greenwashing through carbon credits and offsets. The statement highlights the hypocrisy of signatory nations, citing the EU-Mercosur agreement's impact on the Amazon and the lack of binding regulations to protect Indigenous Peoples' rights and stop industrial agriculture and extractive industries.

The 'Resilient Puna' project aims to protect 120,000 hectares of puna ecosystems in the Southern High Andes of Peru (SHAP) to secure water and livelihoods for approximately 583,000 direct beneficiaries. The initiative focuses on restoring peatlands, wetlands, and grasslands using ancestral techniques like qochas and amunas, while transitioning subsistence farmers toward sustainable agribusinesses. It establishes a 'Puna Facility' to leverage public and private finance, including Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) and carbon credits, to ensure long-term sustainability. The project is led by GIZ and Profonanpe, with strong institutional support from Peru's Ministry of Agricultural Development and Irrigation (MIDAGRI).

WWF International outlines a framework for high-impact nature-based solutions (NbS) for climate mitigation, emphasizing that interventions must simultaneously benefit human well-being, biodiversity, and the climate. The report argues against narrowly designing projects for carbon credits, instead advocating for landscape-scale or jurisdictional approaches that align with national strategies and the Paris Agreement. It provides a hierarchy for forest-related interventions—prioritizing REDD, then improved forest management, and finally afforestation, reforestation, and restoration—and details essential safeguards, including free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) for Indigenous peoples and local communities (IPLCs). To ensure integrity, the blueprint recommends rigorous due diligence to mitigate risks such as inflated baselines, leakage, and non-permanence.

The author contends that outdated Kyoto-era carbon credits lack environmental integrity and that reviving the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) would not benefit the climate. The text highlights the lack of legal basis for continuing the CDM after 2020 and notes the significant uncertainty regarding the volume of existing credits, with estimates ranging from 300 million to over 4 billion CERs.

The essay introduces 'indigenomics' as a framework that blends traditional Indigenous principles—such as circular, regenerative, and gift economies—with modern business practices. It asserts that Indigenous knowledge systems and rights are essential for effective climate adaptation and mitigation, as Indigenous peoples manage vital carbon-storing ecosystems and possess long-term territorial memory. The author highlights several leadership initiatives, including the Great Bear Forest carbon project and Indigenous Protected and Conservation Areas, to demonstrate how Indigenous governance can drive environmental justice. The document concludes that a successful transition to a green economy in Canada requires economic reconciliation and the inclusion of Indigenous knowledge in national climate and economic strategies.

Carbon Market Watch analyzed 18 "carbon neutral" fossil fuel claims, primarily involving liquefied natural gas (LNG), and found that every claim failed to meet basic criteria for environmental integrity and transparency. The report argues that fossil fuels cannot be carbon neutral because the firms involved are not aligned with 1.5°C pathways and rely on flawed "tonne-for-tonne" offsetting. Key failures include the omission of Scope 3 emissions in one-third of claims, a total lack of transparency regarding the price paid for carbon credits, and the use of impermanent nature-based sinks to offset long-term fossil carbon emissions. The report recommends that fossil fuel firms cease these claims, stop new exploration, and shift toward a "contribution" model for climate finance.

The report finds that while the Paris Agreement has integrated forests into the international climate agenda, national ambitions in NDCs remain insufficient and often lack quantitative targets. Public finance for forest climate goals is a small fraction of the required amount, with 'grey' finance for deforestation-driving sectors vastly outweighing 'green' investments. While many countries have established REDD+ programs and robust monitoring systems, implementation is hindered by weak governance, widespread illegality, and a lack of secure land tenure for Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs). The report recommends scaling up domestic and international finance, strengthening land rights, and expanding demand-side regulations in consumer countries to curb illegal deforestation.

The mid-term evaluation of the GEF6-PdP project indicates a satisfactory overall performance, with significant achievements in operationalizing the wider Patrimonio Natural del Perú (PdP) Initiative and strengthening institutional capacities within SERNANP. The project has successfully signed a Single Close Agreement (MoU) and identified seven key financial mechanisms to diversify revenue streams. However, the evaluation highlights critical gaps in inter-sectoral coordination, the lack of a formal participation strategy for local and indigenous communities, and delays caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. While institutional ownership is high, the project's sustainability is threatened by political instability and a lack of a national sustainable financing policy. The evaluation recommends prioritizing the update of SERNANP's Strategic Plan and developing a more robust, participatory methodology for stakeholder engagement.

Ember argues that the EU should lead by example in reducing coal mine methane (CMM) emissions, proposing a differentiated approach to state aid based on the type of methane project. The organization opposes state aid for 'Drained CMM' from active mines to avoid extending mine lifetimes, but supports aid for Ventilation Air Methane (VAM) destruction and Abandoned Mine Methane (AMM) capture, provided strict safeguards are in place to ensure these measures do not increase coal production or profitability.

The Clean Air Task Force (CATF) advocates for federal action to stop the premature closure of U.S. nuclear plants, which provide over half of the country's clean electricity. Since 2012, nine reactors (over 6 GW) have retired early due to market conditions and low natural gas and renewable prices, leading to increased regional emissions. CATF supports legislative options like the Zero-Emission Nuclear Power Production Credit Act of 2021 and the American Nuclear Infrastructure Act (ANIA), provided they include 'guardrails' such as financial stress tests and reverse auctions to ensure support is limited to truly at-risk units.