Search Climate Insights Directory

The 2022 Forest Declaration Assessment concludes that the world is not on track to meet its 2030 forest goals. While Tropical Asia is the only region currently on track to halt deforestation, global rates of forest loss and degradation remain too high, and financial investments are less than 1% of the required amount. The report highlights a gap between ambitious national goals and actual implementation, noting that voluntary corporate actions have been insufficient and that indigenous peoples and local communities remain severely underfunded despite their effectiveness as forest guardians.

The 2022 Forest Declaration Assessment finds that no global indicator is currently on track to meet the 2030 goals of halting forest loss and degradation or restoring 350 million hectares of forest landscape. While global deforestation rates declined by 6.3% in 2021 compared to the 2018-2020 baseline, this falls short of the 10% annual reduction required. Tropical Asia is the only region on track to halt deforestation by 2030, while Tropical Latin America and Africa remain off track. The report also notes that while 130.9 million hectares of tree cover were gained between 2000 and 2020, these were offset by 231.4 million hectares of loss, resulting in a net global loss of 100.5 million hectares.

The document argues that carbon offsets are scientifically flawed and act as a barrier to necessary emissions reductions, exposing companies to significant legal risks including consumer protection lawsuits, regulatory enforcement, and shareholder actions.

The briefing reveals that the US Federal Reserve, Bank of England, and European Central Bank have invested in bonds from agribusinesses like Cargill, ADM, and Bunge, which are linked to deforestation and land-grabbing in regions such as the Brazilian Cerrado and Indonesia. The document argues that such investments subsidize environmentally destructive companies and send a negative signal to private investors. It highlights a gap between central banks' public climate commitments and their actual portfolios, noting that deforestation is often missing from their risk assessments and 'stress tests'. Global Witness recommends that central banks divest from deforestation-linked bonds, implement zero-deforestation policies, and increase prudential supervision of the private financial sector's exposure to these risks.

The report argues that Antarctic krill fishing is unsustainable, threatening a fragile ecosystem already stressed by climate change. It highlights how the industry, dominated by Aker BioMarine, uses greenwashing and problematic certifications like the MSC to justify its operations. An investigation reveals that krill-oil supplements are widely sold by the world's largest retailers and krill meal is extensively used in European salmon aquaculture, often without consumer-facing labels or retailer policies to exclude it.

The research paper details a partnership between the Fort McKay First Nation, the Universities of Calgary and Waterloo, and the oil sands industry to address gaps in mine reclamation policies. It introduces the 'two-eyed approach' for intercultural governance, the 'Respect Cycle' as an ethical code for collaboration, and an 'Intercultural Closure and Reclamation Framework' consisting of six phases to ensure restored lands provide socio-economic, cultural, and environmental benefits. The document emphasizes that inclusive reclamation is a form of reconciliation and essential for an ethical energy transition in Canada.

The document details amendments by the European Parliament's ENVI, TRAN, and AGRI committees to the LULUCF regulation. Key changes include increasing the carbon sink target to at least 310 million tonnes of CO2 by 2030, adding a 50 million tonne target for carbon farming, and separating the objectives of GHG emission reduction from natural carbon sink enhancement. It also introduces stricter definitions for sustainable biomass, excluding wood-derived biomass from green energy incentives while retaining secondary woody biomass. The updated framework establishes five-year compliance cycles, new monitoring systems like the Land Use and Land Cover Survey (LUCAS), and financial support for land and forest owners using ecosystem-based approaches.

The report examines the economic opportunities of transitioning to net-zero emissions by 2050 across several major economies. It argues that public investment can drive innovation and growth through signalling, crowding-in private capital, and reducing unit costs. While fossil fuel-exporting nations like the US, Canada, and Indonesia may face long-term GDP losses as global demand for hydrocarbons falls, the report finds that most subject economies—including the EU, UK, India, Japan, and South Africa—experience net gains in GDP and employment. The transition is predicted to significantly reduce household expenditure on fossil fuels, improve public health by reducing pollution, and enhance energy security, particularly for the EU in the context of reducing dependence on Russian gas.

The land sector is essential for 1.5°C and 2°C pathways, potentially providing up to 30% of global mitigation. While it offers significant near-term potential at low cost, the IPCC warns that land-based mitigation cannot compensate for delayed emissions reductions in other sectors. Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) is deemed necessary for net-zero targets, but the IPCC highlights substantial uncertainties, risks, and a massive investment gap, with current annual investment at USD 0.7 billion against a needed USD 400 billion.

The document argues that the 2030 global mitigation targets of the Paris Agreement cannot be met without protecting and empowering IPLCs. Analysis of Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, and Peru shows that 92% of forested IPLC lands are net carbon sinks, sequestering an average of 30 metric tons of carbon per hectare annually—more than twice the rate of non-IPLC lands. Despite this, the NDCs of these four countries largely fail to acknowledge the role of IPLC lands in meeting national targets. The paper identifies critical governance gaps, including lack of legal land recognition, limited land rights, and poor implementation of free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC). It also highlights the prevalence of illegal deforestation and violence against environmental defenders. The authors recommend that governments strengthen partnerships with IPLCs, ensure full legal land titling, and integrate specific IPLC carbon sequestration data into national inventories.

The report argues that the climate goals of Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, and Peru are heavily dependent on the carbon sequestration provided by IPLC lands, yet these lands are insufficiently recognized in national climate policies and face severe threats from illegal activities and governance gaps.

The report argues that the lands of indigenous peoples and local communities (PICLs) in Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, and Peru are critical carbon sinks that are currently undervalued in national climate commitments. Analysis shows that 92% of PICL forest lands in these countries are net carbon sinks, sequestering an average of 30 tonnes of carbon per hectare annually—more than double the rate of non-PICL lands. Despite this, the NDCs of these four countries contain limited references to PICLs and lack specific targets for protecting their lands. The report identifies significant governance gaps, including incomplete land titling, limited land rights, and the failure to implement Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC). It further highlights that these lands are under constant threat from illegal mining, logging, and agribusiness, often involving state collusion. The authors recommend that governments strengthen partnerships with PICLs, integrate their carbon sequestration data into national inventories, and ensure full legal recognition and protection of their territories to meet 2030 climate goals.

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.

Mighty Earth's analysis of satellite data and field research indicates that tropical forest destruction in Côte d'Ivoire and Ghana remains high despite the 2017 Cocoa & Forests Initiative. The report highlights ongoing canopy loss in protected areas and a lack of transparent monitoring systems, calling for joint public monitoring and a shift toward agroforestry.

The document details the disproportionate impact of climate change on Central Africa, highlighting significant temperature increases, biodiversity loss, and economic decline. It emphasizes the critical need for transformative adaptation and increased climate finance to mitigate future risks to health, food security, and infrastructure.

The report exposes the agricultural sector as a major user of intentionally added microplastics through plastic-coated agrochemicals. It argues that these products directly pollute soils and food chains, acting as vectors for toxins while potentially increasing the toxicity of the active ingredients. The document challenges industry claims of 'climate-smart' efficiency and calls for a comprehensive global ban on primary microplastics in agriculture.

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 examines the systemic risks posed by the 'new planetary reality' of the Anthropocene, where climate instability and biosphere depletion create non-linear financial risks. It argues that current ESG metrics and macroeconomic indicators (like GDP) are insufficient because they fail to account for planetary boundaries and natural capital. The authors highlight the disproportionate responsibility of high-income countries for ecological breakdown and the role of 'keystone actors'—including transnational corporations and 'Big Three' asset managers (BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street)—in driving or mitigating these risks. The document proposes a shift toward a precautionary approach to financial regulation, the adoption of impact accounting, and the use of social norm shifts to accelerate a just transition.

The study examines the relationship between political institutions, support coalition identity, and deforestation. Using satellite data and expert-coded regime data, the author finds that while democratization is generally associated with forest loss, this effect is moderated by the support base: democracies with rural supporters are associated with reforestation. Conversely, regimes relying on urban supporters are linked to higher-than-average forest loss globally and in the tropics, potentially reflecting the consumption demands of urbanizing populations.

The report establishes four core principles for verifying 'real' carbon dioxide removals: sourcing carbon from the atmosphere, ensuring permanent storage (at least 200-300 years), conducting comprehensive life cycle assessments of all associated emissions, and ensuring net-negative results. It argues against the 'false equivalency' that one tonne emitted equals one tonne removed, noting that removals may only undo up to 90% of an emission's impact and cannot reverse certain climate damages like sea-level rise. The author emphasizes that CDR should supplement, not replace, deep decarbonization to prevent 'mitigation deterrence,' where the promise of future removals slows current emission cuts.