Search Climate Insights Directory

Friends of the Earth International (FoEI) critiques the REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) mechanism, claiming it exacerbates land tenure conflicts, threatens food security, and allows industrial polluters in the Global North to avoid domestic emission cuts. Through case studies in Indonesia, Mozambique, and Peru, the report illustrates failures in carbon accounting, financial instability, and the marginalization of Indigenous peoples. FoEI proposes an alternative model of community forest management, citing Bolivia's proposal to the UNFCCC as a viable path toward climate justice and sustainable forest preservation.

Friends of the Earth International (FoEI) contends that REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation) fails to deliver permanent emissions reductions and often harms Indigenous Peoples and local communities. Through case studies in Indonesia, Mozambique, and Peru, the report illustrates how REDD+ can exacerbate land tenure conflicts, threaten food security, and facilitate continued pollution in industrialised countries via carbon offsets. FoEI proposes replacing these market-based mechanisms with community-led forest management based on traditional knowledge and a global reduction in the demand for forest-derived products.

The workshop focused on leveraging international funds like the Green Climate Fund (GCF) and Climate Investment Funds (CIFs) to drive low-carbon investment in Brazil. Key discussions highlighted that a lack of long-term governmental strategic vision and internal organizational cultures in banks act as barriers to green investment. The event presented innovative financial instruments and case studies from Colombia and Mexico to demonstrate how blending concessional finance with private resources and risk mitigation tools can unlock climate-relevant investments.

The document warns forest communities in tropical regions about the dangers of signing REDD and forest conservation contracts, which it argues can lead to 'deterritorialization' and loss of autonomy. It details how these contracts often use technical language to hide restrictive obligations, such as banning traditional agriculture and wood use, while granting companies extensive access to biodiversity and carbon credits for long periods (30 to 80 years). The guide advocates for the recognition of indigenous land rights and the implementation of public policies that support collective, non-market-based community forest management as a more effective way to preserve biodiversity and prevent deforestation.

The guide warns forest communities against signing REDD and forest conservation contracts, which it argues are often designed to strip local people of their land rights and sovereignty. It highlights how these contracts, often written in technical jargon and spanning 30 to 80 years, impose strict prohibitions on farming and timber use, potentially forcing communities to abandon their territories. The document advocates for community-based forest management and the recognition of traditional land rights as more effective and just alternatives to market-based carbon schemes.

The document outlines the current state of greenhouse gas emissions in Manitoba, highlighting that the transportation and agriculture sectors are the largest contributors. It reviews previous efforts, such as the Beyond Kyoto plan, and examines climate policies in other jurisdictions like Quebec, British Columbia, and Sweden to inform a new provincial strategy. The paper emphasizes the need to integrate adaptation and mitigation, particularly for the vulnerable agriculture and water sectors, and proposes a set of guiding principles for the new plan. It concludes with a questionnaire designed to gather stakeholder input on barriers, opportunities, and capacity-building needs for reducing emissions and enhancing resilience in Manitoba.

The document analyzes the impact of California's Cap and Trade Program on the cement industry, using financial modeling and interviews to assess abatement options. It finds that while carbon pricing makes some investments more attractive, significant barriers—such as short internal payback period requirements (1.5-3 years), uncertainty regarding alternative fuel supplies, and prescriptive customer procurement standards—often outweigh the carbon price signal. The authors suggest that complementary policies, such as public financing for long-term projects and performance-based procurement standards, are necessary to unlock low-cost emissions reductions.

The document outlines Manitoba's current emissions profile, the shortcomings of its previous 'Beyond Kyoto' plan, and the goals for a new integrated approach to climate mitigation and adaptation. It emphasizes the role of the energy and building sectors in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and enhancing resilience to extreme weather. The paper also reviews climate policies in other Canadian jurisdictions and proposes guiding principles for the new provincial strategy, including the development of mandatory GHG reporting for large emitters.

The statement argues that the CDM currently functions as a zero-sum offsetting mechanism that may increase global emissions due to non-additional credits. It recommends a shift toward achieving 'net atmospheric benefits' and proposes rigorous reforms to additionality assessments, the exclusion of high-emission technologies like coal, and the establishment of formal grievance mechanisms and enhanced civil society participation. The author also calls for greater transparency from Designated National Authorities (DNAs) and a restructured CDM Executive Board to prevent conflicts of interest.

The document argues that scaling out community-based adaptation (CBA) requires moving beyond isolated pilots to a systemic approach that integrates adaptive capacity, strategic partnerships, and documented evidence. It identifies four key enabling factors: building comprehensive adaptive capacity (assets, institutions, knowledge, innovation, and decision-making), leveraging diverse networks including the private sector, producing rigorous cost-benefit evidence, and utilizing flexible institutional and finance mechanisms. Case studies from Niger, Colombia, Zambia, and Bangladesh illustrate different pathways to scale, ranging from informal farmer networks and municipal government planning to commercial contract farming and international research platforms.

The paper identifies four types of double counting—double issuance, double claiming, double use, and double purpose—and argues that preventing these is essential for the integrity of international carbon markets. It recommends a 'net flows' accounting approach to ensure full fungibility of units and the international linking of emissions trading schemes. To prevent double issuance, the authors suggest a combination of entity attestations, host country approval, and a centralized UNFCCC information platform. The document emphasizes that globally unique serial numbers containing detailed metadata on mechanism, country, vintage, and scope are critical for effective international oversight.

The paper argues that single-year targets create uncertainty regarding emissions pathways and may reduce cumulative mitigation outcomes compared to multi-year targets, especially when tradable units are used. It assesses four accounting options to address these issues and recommends that future international agreements require continuous multi-year targets to ensure comparability and alignment with carbon budgets.

The SB 40 conference in Bonn saw limited progress on reforming Kyoto Protocol mechanisms and defining a framework for various mitigation approaches, though 60 nations agreed to phase out fossil fuels by mid-century. Negotiations on the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and Joint Implementation (JI) were largely postponed to future sessions in Lima, while discussions continued on including land-use sectors in the CDM and the role of local stakeholder consultation.

The workshop brought together 60 participants from India and Nepal to evaluate the shortcomings of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and explore the potential of Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs). Participants emphasized the need to integrate human rights and robust safeguards into the 2015 Paris climate agreement and the Indian national policy framework. Key outcomes included the agreement to form a civil society working group to coordinate demands for the Indian government and the decision to write an open letter to Prime Minister Modi ahead of COP 20.

Friends of the Earth International (FoEI) opposes the REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) system, whether market-based or publicly funded. FoEI argues that REDD treats forests as mere carbon stocks, which ignores their social and cultural value and creates perverse incentives for deforestation. The document highlights risks such as the criminalization of traditional forest management, the displacement of communities, and the failure of carbon offsets to permanently reduce emissions. Instead of financial incentives, FoEI proposes strengthening the land rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities, supporting collective forest management, and demanding that industrialized nations reduce fossil fuel emissions without relying on offsets.

Friends of the Earth International (FoEI) argues that REDD schemes, whether market-based or publicly funded, fail to address the root causes of climate change and risk harming the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities. FoEI contends that REDD commodifies forests, reduces them to 'carbon stocks', and creates perverse incentives for deforestation while enabling industrialized nations to avoid direct emission reductions through offsets. The organization advocates for the recognition of communal land rights and the empowerment of forest-dependent populations as the only effective means of forest conservation.

The document outlines SEI's research on climate finance and carbon markets, arguing that adaptation finance priorities are political rather than scientific, and that private sector finance is unlikely to meet the primary needs of the poor and vulnerable. It also evaluates the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), suggesting that excluding problematic project types, such as coal power, would improve carbon market efficiency.

The COP19 analysis by Carbon Market Watch describes the conference as demoralizing due to the influence of corporate interests and the lowering of climate targets by countries like Japan. While the conference established a mechanism for loss and damage and made progress on REDD+ safeguards and funding, it failed to reach decisions on future carbon markets, the Framework for Various Approaches (FVA), or the New Market Mechanism (NMM). The document also notes that reforms to the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and Joint Implementation (JI) were largely postponed, though some guidance on stakeholder consultation for the CDM was improved.

A collective declaration by 136 organisations opposing biodiversity offsets, arguing that nature cannot be traded as a commodity and that such mechanisms facilitate financial speculation and the avoidance of stricter environmental legislation.

The letter urges UNFCCC delegates to establish clear requirements for mitigation to stay below 2 degrees warming and to implement strict safeguards for carbon markets. Specifically, it calls for the rejection of a pilot phase for trading units under the Framework for Various Approaches (FVA), the creation of an international accounting framework to prevent double counting, and the exclusion of non-additional projects and coal power from the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM).