Search Climate Insights Directory

A coalition of 121 civil society organisations calls for a robust Paris Treaty featuring 5-year commitment periods, a 2050 decarbonisation goal, and the exclusion of international carbon offsets. The letter advocates for a human rights-based approach, the integration of Sustainable Development Goals, and the recognition of Loss & Damage to ensure a just transition and environmental integrity.

Carbon Market Watch argues that while few countries explicitly include international trading in their Intended Nationally Determined Contributions, carbon pricing is already used by jurisdictions representing 40% of the global economy. The organization warns that a lack of clear international rules could lead to non-harmonized standards and double counting. It recommends strict principles for carbon markets, including the avoidance of 'hot air' credits, the requirement for net atmospheric benefits, and the exclusion of REDD-plus from carbon markets.

The document warns that 11 gigatonnes of 'hot air' credits—resulting from overestimated emissions and low-quality projects under the Kyoto Protocol—threaten the ambition of the Paris agreement. It proposes that these credits should not be carried over into the compliance period starting in 2020 and that strict eligibility rules should limit the use of market mechanisms to parties with ambitious reduction goals.

The document critiques industrial agriculture as a primary driver of climate change and social inequality, while presenting agroecology as a viable, small-scale alternative. It specifically attacks 'Climate Smart Agriculture' (CSA) as a corporate-led 'false solution' designed to greenwash industrial practices. The text advocates for a transition toward food sovereignty and the relocalisation of food systems, highlighting the role of women and traditional knowledge in building climate resilience.

The report compiles research on enhancing global climate action, focusing on innovative financing mechanisms like microfinance and debt-for-climate swaps, the role of carbon pricing in driving innovation, and the necessity of robust accountability frameworks for the Paris Agreement. It also examines specific urban water resiliency in Patna, India, and proposes a Low-Emissions Technology Commitment within the UNFCCC to accelerate energy research. The proceedings emphasize the need for a multi-level approach to adaptation and the potential for 'climate clubs' to overcome multilateral deadlock.

The policy brief defines 'hot air' as carbon credits that do not represent real emission reductions, which can increase overall global emissions if used to meet mitigation pledges. It identifies four primary sources of hot air: surplus allowances from emission trading systems, double-counted reductions, non-additional credits from offsetting projects, and non-permanent land-use offsets. To protect the environmental integrity of the Paris agreement, the author recommends regulating carbon market use to exclude surplus pre-2020 units, establishing a robust international accounting and MRV system, shifting from offset credits to direct financial support for developing countries, and banning non-permanent land-use offsets.

The briefing advocates for Community Forest Management (CFM) as a superior model for protecting biodiversity and mitigating climate change compared to industrial forestry and absolute protection regimes. It highlights that CFM can reduce deforestation rates and enhance carbon storage while securing the rights and livelihoods of Indigenous Peoples and local communities. The document warns against 'false solutions' like REDD+ and the 'financialization of nature,' which it claims risk land grabbing and the erosion of traditional governance. It recommends that governments recognize collective land tenure and that international frameworks, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity, prioritize CFM over traditional Protected Areas to meet conservation goals.

The document advocates for Community Forest Management (CFM) as a critical tool for biodiversity conservation and climate mitigation. It presents evidence that CFM often outperforms strict protection regimes in reducing deforestation, particularly when supported by secure land tenure and local autonomy. The briefing highlights the role of CFM in carbon sequestration and climate adaptation, while warning against 'false solutions' like REDD+ and the financialisation of nature, which it claims threaten community rights and traditional governance.

The document presents community forest management (CFM) as a superior alternative to industrial logging and strict protected areas for preserving biodiversity and mitigating climate change. It highlights that CFM can be more effective at reducing deforestation, as evidenced by data from Brazil and Costa Rica, and provides critical livelihood support to approximately 1.6 billion people. The text identifies key success factors for CFM, including secure land tenure, local decision-making autonomy, and strong social capital. Conversely, it warns against 'false solutions' such as REDD+ and the financialization of nature, which it claims risk land grabbing and the erosion of traditional governance. The document concludes by recommending the prioritization of decentralized, authentic CFM and the legal protection of indigenous and local community rights to ensure ecological and social justice.

The briefing advocates for Community Forest Management (CFM) as a superior model for forest conservation and climate action compared to industrial logging and state-led protected areas. It highlights CFM's role in carbon storage and biodiversity protection, while warning against market-based mechanisms like REDD+ that may lead to land grabbing. The document recommends that governments recognize communal land tenure and prioritize CFM to meet international biodiversity targets.

The document evaluates the impact of subsistence and smallholder activities on forest loss, noting that while they account for approximately 33% of deforestation and 27-34% of degradation in tropical and subtropical regions, the relationship between poverty and forest loss is non-linear. It identifies clean cookstove distribution and financial support for woodfuel interventions as key proxy indicators for progress. The report highlights a significant increase in Official Development Assistance (ODA) for the woodfuel sector and provides case studies from the Democratic Republic of Congo and Peru to illustrate localized interventions. It concludes that agricultural ODA and climate mitigation forestry ODA are largely uncoordinated, with the latter concentrating in middle-income countries rather than the least developed countries where food security is most pressing.

The report evaluates the effectiveness of public and private financial incentives for reducing forest emissions between 2005 and 2015. It finds that while over US$3 billion in public funds were committed to performance-based REDD+ payments by 2014, actual disbursements lagged at just over US$1 billion. The private forest carbon market experienced rapid growth until 2011 but subsequently declined, with the market value falling to approximately US$150 million by 2013. The document highlights that the voluntary carbon market alone is insufficient to scale up demand and emphasizes the need for integration into emissions trading systems.

The report establishes a monitoring framework for the New York Declaration on Forests (NYDF), assessing ten goals related to halting deforestation, restoring landscapes, and improving governance. While it notes that 'overall progress remains slow', it identifies positive trends such as the inclusion of a deforestation target in the Sustainable Development Goals and an increase in clean cookstove distribution. The document highlights significant data gaps, particularly regarding non-agricultural drivers of deforestation and domestic public spending on forests, while noting that 'data are mostly trending in the right direction'.

This executive summary introduces a monitoring framework for the New York Declaration on Forests (NYDF) and provides an initial assessment of its ten goals one year after their signing. While noting the creation of new initiatives and commitments, the report concludes that global progress has been slow and urgent action is required. Key findings include a lack of deceleration in natural forest harvesting, significant gaps in sustainable certification for soy and beef, and a lag between REDD+ funding commitments and actual disbursements.

The policy brief argues that any use of carbon markets post-2020 must be governed by strict environmental integrity standards to avoid 'hot air' and double counting. It recommends that the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) undergo fundamental reform, including the adoption of social and human rights safeguards, to remain viable. The brief also calls for the exclusion of early action credits from post-2020 targets and urges the UNFCCC to demand greater emission reductions and adaptation levies from the international aviation (ICAO) and maritime (IMO) sectors. Finally, it advocates for the inclusion of human rights and gender equality protections in the core text of the Paris Agreement.

The document defines results-based financing (RBF) and argues for the integration of carbon market and non-market climate finance. It suggests that moving away from the parallel existence of these two modalities can yield synergies that enhance the effectiveness of climate mitigation efforts.

The report documents a significant decline in power plant-related health impacts and emissions in the U.S. and the RGGI region between 2004 and 2012, attributing these gains to stringent emission controls, the transition from coal to natural gas, and renewable energy policies.

The report argues that while land use generates approximately a quarter of global greenhouse gas emissions and is highly vulnerable to climate change, current financial flows are predominantly 'business-as-usual' (BAU). To address this, the authors introduce three tools: the Landscape of Land Use Finance, the Financial Viability Gap Analysis tool, and the Public Finance Mapping tool. These tools are designed to help low and middle-income countries identify financial blockages, assess the viability of green projects, and ensure policy coherence to scale up private sector investment in climate-resilient agriculture and forestry.

Carbon Market Watch argues that carbon markets should not substitute for domestic emission reductions and warns that oversupply in previous systems, such as the EU ETS and Kyoto Protocol's International Emissions Trading, has undermined their effectiveness. The organization emphasizes that the remaining carbon budget to stay below 2ºC is limited, necessitating a focus on zero/low carbon infrastructure over offsetting. It recommends that any new framework for international unit transfers must include robust eligibility rules, environmental integrity standards, and accounting rules to prevent double claiming.

Carbon Market Watch argues that while carbon markets can be useful for high-cost emission reduction sectors, they must not substitute for domestic action or lead to the lock-in of high-carbon infrastructure. The organization emphasizes the necessity of an all-encompassing international accounting framework to prevent double counting and calls for the integration of social and environmental safeguards, including a grievance mechanism for the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM).