Search Climate Insights Directory

The document outlines a 24-month, USD 599,908 project to advance fire management in Guatemala by transitioning from a reactive suppression model to a proactive, traditional fire management (TFM) approach. It aims to create a permanent national coordination mechanism, develop a GCF Project Concept Note for an ER TFM sector, and implement satellite-based Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification (MRV) tools based on Australian models. The initiative focuses on leveraging indigenous knowledge, particularly from the Maya population, to implement early dry season burning to prevent high-intensity late-season wildfires, thereby reducing GHG emissions in the land-use, land-use change, and forestry (LULUCF) sector.

The Travel & Expense Procedures (Version 3.0) establish the operational rules for claiming business expenses at FSD Africa. It mandates that all spending be "reasonable and necessary" and aligned with a "pro-poor mission." The document details specific reimbursement caps for meals, rules for alcohol and telephone usage, and the requirement for original receipts. It also includes specific protocols for travel during the Covid-19 pandemic and a carbon footprint statement aimed at reducing and offsetting CO2 emissions from business travel.

Carbon Market Watch (CMW) critiques a draft guidance document for companies purchasing tropical forest carbon credits, primarily arguing that the draft implicitly supports 'offsetting'—which CMW deems scientifically inaccurate when substituting fossil carbon with biological carbon. CMW demands the removal of the word 'consensus' from the title, as the draft does not reflect the views of many NGOs and CSOs. The response emphasizes the need for mandatory transparency regarding how much revenue from credit transactions actually reaches indigenous peoples and local communities (IPs and LCs) versus intermediaries. CMW also insists that 'corresponding adjustments' under the Paris Agreement must be mandatory for any claims of emission reductions to prevent double counting.

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 Corporate Climate Responsibility Monitor 2022 finds that most of the 25 major global companies assessed have net-zero pledges that lack integrity, with aggregate emissions targeted for reduction by only 40% at most. While 15 companies report interim targets for 2030, the average reduction commitment for full value chain emissions is only 23%. Scope 3 emissions average 87% of total emissions, yet only 8 companies provide moderate detail on addressing them. The report notes a heavy reliance on unbundled renewable energy certificates (RECs) and contentious offsetting plans, particularly nature-based solutions, while suggesting that 'climate contributions' without neutrality claims are an emerging alternative.

The Corporate Climate Responsibility Monitor 2022 assesses 25 multinational companies, finding that most 'net zero' pledges are ambiguous and lack deep emission reduction commitments. The report highlights a systemic reliance on low-quality carbon offsets and renewable energy certificates (RECs) that often fail to provide additional climate benefits. While a few companies demonstrate leadership in renewable energy procurement and value chain engagement, the overall integrity of corporate climate strategies remains low, with many targets falling short of the 1.5C Paris Agreement goal.

The document highlights a severe funding gap for forest protection, where annual needs range from USD 45 to 460 billion but current funding averages only USD 2.4 billion. While there has been growth in REDD+ commitments, private finance from voluntary carbon markets, and ESG funds since 2015, 'grey finance'—investments driving deforestation—continues to dominate. The brief identifies systemic barriers such as perverse economic incentives and weak governance, and calls for governments and the private sector to align budgets, reform subsidies, and increase investment transparency to meet global climate goals.

The report documents a series of virtual workshops held in 2021 by Climate Action Network Canada (CAN-Rac) involving approximately 30 civil society groups. The discussions focused on the technical, moral, and ethical challenges of achieving net-zero, emphasizing the need for social justice, equity, and inclusion. Key areas of focus included the energy transition, the definition of 'net' in net-zero, and the distinction between incremental and systems change to inform future advocacy and policy asks.

The Canadian Climate Institute proposes a two-pronged strategy to reach carbon neutrality in the electricity sector by 2035. First, it recommends enhancing carbon pricing by eliminating the Output-Based Pricing System (OBPS) for electricity and using financial instruments like the Canada Infrastructure Bank to reduce investment uncertainty. Second, it suggests a clean electricity standard that sets emission intensity ceilings for new plants and mandates full carbon neutrality for all plants by 2035, allowing for flexibility through carbon offsets to ensure grid reliability.

The report outlines a consensus among approximately 30 Canadian civil society organizations to prioritize absolute emissions reductions over carbon removals and offsets. Key recommendations include establishing a firm fossil fuel phase-out date, ending subsidies for nuclear and carbon capture technologies, and integrating Indigenous reconciliation and just transition principles into climate policy. The document highlights a tension between incremental government targets and the systemic change required to align with a 1.5°C warming limit.

The report details a series of virtual workshops held in 2021 involving approximately 30 civil society organizations to discuss Canada's net-zero goals. The findings highlight a strong consensus on the need for absolute emission reductions, the phase-out of fossil fuels, and the prioritization of 'safe bets' like clean electricity and energy efficiency over uncertain technologies. Key areas of concern include the role of carbon capture and storage (CCS), the use of carbon offsets, and the necessity of integrating climate justice and Indigenous reconciliation into national strategies. The document concludes with a set of proposed 'guardrails' and policy demands to guide Canada's transition to carbon neutrality.

The report argues that South African agriculture faces urgent climate risks, including temperature rises of 2 to 4 °C by 2050, but suffers from a significant climate finance gap. It highlights opportunities in AgTech, regenerative agriculture, and renewable energy, while recommending the use of innovative instruments like blended finance and sustainability-linked loans to overcome barriers such as high transaction costs and a lack of bankable project pipelines.

The document argues that carbon offsetting is often used to justify continued emissions and delay the necessary phase-out of fossil fuels. It distinguishes between 'avoidance offsets', which are deemed incompatible with net zero goals, and 'removal offsets', which face significant challenges regarding permanence, additionality, and scale. The authors contend that the current carbon market reproduces global inequalities and risks negative social outcomes, particularly in land-based projects. They recommend that governments and businesses eliminate avoidance offsets, prioritize direct emission reductions, and fund necessary carbon removals through non-market mechanisms such as public financing or mandates.

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 Sustainable Agriculture Market Intelligence Report by GreenCape outlines key investment opportunities in South Africa's agricultural sector, focusing on energy efficiency, renewable energy, regenerative agriculture, controlled environment agriculture (CEA), smart farming, and electric equipment. It highlights the dual nature of the South African agricultural economy and the specific role of the Western Cape as a greentech hub. The report details the drivers for sustainable transition, such as rising input costs and resource scarcity, and examines the impact of national policies like the Carbon Tax Act and international strategies such as the EU's Farm to Fork strategy.

The Center for International Environmental Law argues that COP26 failed to address the root causes of the climate crisis, specifically fossil fuels, and instead relied on 'false solutions' like carbon offsets. The statement highlights the exclusion of civil society and Indigenous Peoples from negotiations, the inadequacy of climate finance for adaptation and loss and damage, and the persistence of 'greenwashing' by corporate interests. While noting some progress in marginal alliances like the Beyond Oil & Gas Alliance, the author concludes that the official negotiated outcomes lack the ambition and equity required to keep global warming below 1.5°C.

The document clarifies the distinctions between Article 6.2 and 6.4 mechanisms, the role of 'corresponding adjustments' in preventing double counting, and the transition of the Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) into the new framework. It highlights risks such as the potential for 2.8 billion 'dud' credits from transitioning CDM projects and the lack of mandatory cancellation for ITMOs under Article 6.2.

The statement critiques 'Nature-based Solutions' (NbS) as a deceptive framework used by governments and corporations to justify 'net zero' targets without implementing deep emission reductions. It asserts that NbS rely on flawed assumptions about carbon sequestration and risk triggering massive land grabs in the Global South, citing the example of ENI in Mozambique. The author calls for structural changes, immediate emission cuts by developed nations, and the protection of Indigenous rights over market-based environmental schemes.