Search Climate Insights Directory

The document is an open letter from civil society networks and affected citizens calling on UNFCCC delegates at COP19 to ensure that carbon markets do not undermine climate goals. It demands the prevention of the Framework for Various Approaches (FVA) pilot phase, the establishment of accounting rules to avoid double counting, and the exclusion of non-additional projects and fossil fuel financing from the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM).

The document is an open letter addressed to ministers and delegates of UNFCCC signatory states, urging them to adopt ambitious climate protection measures and stop the use of emissions trading to weaken climate commitments. The signatories, representing 33 countries, demand the rejection of a pilot phase for emissions unit trading under the Framework for Various Approaches (FVA), the prevention of double counting, and the exclusion of non-additional projects and coal from the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). They also call for the cessation of fossil fuel subsidies and the implementation of human rights safeguards in climate projects.

The document calls for the establishment of clear, equitable mitigation commitments to maintain a 2°C warming limit and requests the rejection of a pilot phase for trading carbon market units under the Framework for Various Approaches (FVA). It advocates for an international accounting framework to prevent double counting, the exclusion of non-additional projects and coal power from the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), and the implementation of human rights safeguards for mitigation projects under the CDM, Green Climate Fund, and NAMAs.

The document is an open letter signed by 87 civil society networks and organisations from 33 countries. It calls on UNFCCC delegates at COP-19 to ensure ambitious mitigation commitments to maintain a temperature limit of 2°C and to prevent carbon market mechanisms from weakening these goals. Specifically, the signatories demand the rejection of a pilot phase for trading carbon market units under the Framework for Various Approaches (FVA), the establishment of an international accounting framework to prevent double counting, and the exclusion of non-additional project types, such as large power projects and coal power, from the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and Joint Implementation (JI). The letter also advocates for the cessation of fossil fuel subsidies and the implementation of human rights safeguards for projects under the CDM, Green Climate Fund, and Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs).

The document is an open letter addressed to COP19 participants, arguing that carbon markets must not be allowed to undermine national climate commitments. It calls for clear, ambitious targets to keep global warming below 2 degrees Celsius, the end of the first commitment period for carbon trading under the Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) to avoid emissions leakage after 2020, and the establishment of an international accounting system to prevent double counting. Additionally, it advocates for the exclusion of flexible mechanisms like the CDM and large-scale projects from climate pledges, the removal of coal from the Clean Development Mechanism, and the protection of human rights when integrating the Green Climate Fund into carbon markets.

The document outlines the role of the Coalition for Rainforest Nations (CfRN) in supporting developing countries during international climate negotiations, specifically focusing on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+). It argues that the Kyoto Protocol failed to address deforestation, which accounts for approximately 20% of annual global CO2 emissions, and details CfRN's strategies for capacity building, including technical support, negotiation training, and securing leadership roles for delegates. Case studies from the Dominican Republic, Papua New Guinea, and Liberia illustrate the practical application of these supports in national policy and international diplomacy.

The Kalimantan Forests and Climate Partnership (KFCP) was a publically funded demonstration project (2009–2013) aimed at rehabilitating degraded peat swamp forests in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. While it did not fully achieve its objective of demonstrating effective rehabilitation at scale, it provided critical technical data, an innovative canal-blocking design, and a model for community engagement through 'Village Agreements'. The study estimates that if such projects can save 26 million tons of carbon over 30 years, they could be financially viable for private investors at carbon prices between AUD 4 and AUD 23 per ton. However, significant barriers remain, including contradictory land-zoning laws, uncertain revenue-sharing frameworks, and the need for robust national measurement, reporting, and verification (MRV) systems.

Carbon Market Watch argues that the Framework for Various Approaches (FVA) should not be established or piloted until the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action (ADP) defines mitigation commitment requirements and common accounting rules. The author contends that carbon markets have failed to incentivize adequate national commitments and warns that without stringent eligibility criteria and international oversight, the FVA could facilitate the use of low-quality units and 'hot air' offsets. Key recommendations include linking market access to high ambition, eliminating all forms of double-counting to ensure a 'net atmospheric benefit', and excluding detrimental sectors like coal power and REDD+ activities from the framework.

The document examines the negotiations surrounding the Framework for Various Approaches (FVA) ahead of COP-19, highlighting the tension between parties seeking minimal guidance and those calling for centralized oversight. It argues that for carbon markets to support a new climate deal, they must be predicated on ambitious mitigation targets, strict environmental integrity, and the prevention of double counting. The author specifically warns that a proposed FVA pilot phase, advocated by Poland, could set a dangerous precedent by allowing early action units to be recognized in a post-2020 regime before fundamental accounting rules are established.

Carbon Market Watch opposes a pilot phase for the Framework for Various Approaches (FVA), arguing that the lack of established rules on environmental integrity and accounting makes such a phase premature. The organization warns that recognizing "early action" from a pilot could undermine future post-2020 climate regime negotiations and set a dangerous precedent for low-quality market units. It suggests that the FVA process should instead be used to define rigorous standards for real, permanent, and additional mitigation and to resolve double-counting issues, particularly those seen in the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM).

The author contends that soil carbon markets are financially and technically unviable due to low carbon prices, measurement challenges, and the high cost of implementation. The text argues that pushing for emission reductions in agriculture burdens small farmers in India, Africa, and Latin America, potentially leading to the takeover of agricultural operations by non-farmers. It advocates for agro-ecological approaches and financial support for adaptation over market-based mitigation burdens.

The author argues that planning new market mechanisms like the NMM and FVA for COP-19 is 'careless' due to an 'astronomic over-supply' of existing offset credits from the CDM and JI. While regional compliance schemes are emerging in Japan, California, and China, there is a lack of common understanding regarding the scope and environmental integrity of the Framework for Various Approaches (FVA) and the definition of non-market based approaches (NMBA).

The document discusses the ongoing negotiations in Bonn regarding the FVA and NMM, highlighting the need for standards that ensure real, permanent, and verified mitigation outcomes while avoiding double counting. Carbon Market Watch proposes specific governance and accounting measures to secure net atmospheric benefits and uphold human rights.

Carbon Market Watch argues that existing carbon markets have collapsed due to oversupply and poor quality, specifically citing the CDM and JI. The briefing recommends strengthening additionality criteria, shortening crediting periods, and establishing mandatory human rights and sustainability safeguards. For new mechanisms like the FVA and NMM, it advocates for a binding international governance structure and a common transaction tracking mechanism to prevent double counting of emission reductions.

Friends of the Earth International challenges the World Bank's assertion that land lease deals in developing countries improve livelihoods, citing evidence that these deals often lead to community displacement, violent conflict, and increased hunger. The statement highlights that investors target poor countries with weak tenure security, primarily for export-oriented agribusiness and non-food crops, while the World Bank continues to provide political risk insurance for such projects and has been involved in controversial land deals in Uganda.

The report examines the challenges and mechanisms for attracting private capital to climate finance, noting that private funding is nearly three times larger than public funding but remains difficult to channel toward adaptation in developing countries. It identifies political, project-related, and financing barriers—particularly in Africa—and suggests a combination of policy reforms and financial instruments like loan guarantees and pledge funds to mitigate risk. The Green Climate Fund (GCF) is highlighted as a central vehicle for achieving the $100 billion annual target by 2020, though it must address the funding gap between mitigation and adaptation.

Carbon Market Watch criticizes the development of New Market Mechanisms (NMM) and the Framework for Various Approaches (FVA) following COP-17 and COP-18. The author argues that these initiatives risk increasing the supply of low-quality carbon credits in a market already severely oversupplied, where offset prices are below 0.20 EURO. The document highlights a conflict between countries seeking 'flexible' rules (such as Japan, the US, and New Zealand) and those advocating for stringent, CDM-like oversight (such as the EU) to ensure environmental integrity and avoid double counting.

The document outlines a practitioner's approach to creating NAMAs that align with low-carbon, climate-resilient development (LCCRD) planning. It details a two-track methodology: the NAMA Quick Screen, which uses a five-step qualitative process to identify promising mitigation options and develop NAMA concepts for the UNFCCC registry; and the NAMA Deep Screen, a seven-step technical process that calculates GHG emission baselines, marginal abatement costs (MACs), and sustainable development co-benefits to produce detailed NAMA proposals. The guide emphasizes the necessity of local validation with government and private sector stakeholders to ensure actions are feasible and aligned with national priorities. It also provides a framework for linking identified mitigation options to specific implementation barriers and appropriate climate finance instruments, such as grants, concessional loans, and carbon market financing.

The report identifies synergies and trade-offs between climate change mitigation, adaptation, and food security in the agricultural sector. It evaluates existing international funding mechanisms—including carbon markets, multilateral funds, and Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs)—and proposes the creation of domestic 'gatekeeper institutions' to coordinate resources and overcome implementation fragmentation for smallholders.

The document argues that Joint Implementation (JI) requires significant reform to prevent the 'laundering' of surplus emission units and to ensure that credits represent real, additional greenhouse gas reductions. CAN-I recommends a single unified track with stringent oversight, the prohibition of using first commitment period (CP1) Assigned Amount Units (AAUs) to shadow credits during the transition to the second commitment period (CP2), and the implementation of mandatory independent audits for baselines and 'positive lists'. It further calls for a robust appeals process that allows NGOs to challenge project approvals and a mandatory 30-day public comment period for monitoring reports.