Search Climate Insights Directory

Natural Justice submitted a series of recommendations to the Kenyan government regarding the Draft Forest Policy 2020. The organization argues that the draft unfairly portrays local communities as the primary drivers of forest degradation while ignoring the impact of multinational corporations and government infrastructure projects. They propose integrating a human-rights based approach, recognizing indigenous land tenure and traditional governance, and ensuring that conservation funding reaches the community level. Additionally, they call for greater transparency in the policy's formulation and the inclusion of independent monitoring to address conflicts of interest within the Kenya Forest Service.

The analysis finds that rural credit for small farmers increases productivity and reduces deforestation pressures, whereas credit for large producers is associated with increased land expansion and deforestation. The document recommends prioritizing credit distribution to small producers to align subsidies with forest conservation goals.

The analysis finds that rural credit for small farmers (specifically through PRONAF) increases crop and cattle productivity and reduces deforestation by converting pasture to cropland. Conversely, credit for large farmers and firms is associated with the expansion of both cropland and pasture, leading to higher deforestation. The document recommends that Brazilian policymakers prioritize small farmers in credit distribution to align subsidies with forest conservation goals.

The ESMF provides the guidelines, legal frameworks, and procedural requirements for managing environmental and social risks for a GEF-funded project in Ecuador's Amazon. It focuses on establishing connectivity corridors in the Putumayo-Aguarico and Palora-Pastaza landscapes, ensuring the protection of biodiversity and the rights of indigenous peoples through Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC).

The analysis examines 'natural climate solutions'—the restoration of carbon-storing environments—and warns that they may serve as alibis for inaction. The author highlights five primary risks: the impermanence and unverifiability of carbon storage, the potential for these solutions to substitute for avoidable fossil fuel emission reductions, the failure of previous carbon offset schemes, negative social impacts including land grabs in the tropics, and the risk of increasing food prices by competing with cropland. The document concludes that while protecting forests is beneficial, such initiatives must be severely capped within national targets and excluded from tradable carbon markets to ensure they do not undermine genuine decarbonisation.

The document argues that Brazil's agricultural expansion has historically occurred at the expense of native ecosystems, specifically noting that nearly 65 million hectares of forests and savannas in the Legal Amazon were replaced by pastures and cropland since 1985. To shift away from this horizontal expansion, the authors suggest four interventions: designating undesignated public forests as protected areas to stop land grabbing; using the Brazilian Forest Code to facilitate payments for environmental services on private lands; investing in sustainable intensification technologies for medium and large properties; and providing technical assistance to small farmers to improve livelihoods and reduce deforestation pressure.

The report provides a comprehensive 'radiography' of how Brazilian states are implementing the Forest Code. It identifies a significant gap between the high rates of CAR registration and the slow progress of CAR validation and PRA implementation. While some states in the North and Center-West regions are advanced, the Northeast region lags behind. The document highlights systemic barriers, including a lack of technical resources, poor quality of self-declared data, and a heavy dependence on the federal government's SICAR system. It also examines state-specific rules for restoring Permanent Preservation Areas (APP) and Legal Reserves (RL), noting wide variations in restoration deadlines and methodologies.

The document argues that forest sector solutions—including conservation, restoration, and improved management—are cost-effective tools for large-scale GHG emission reductions and carbon removal. It identifies a significant gap in current NDCs, where forest-specific quantitative targets are rare and carbon-rich ecosystems like mangroves and peatlands are underrepresented. The authors propose a six-step process for NDC enhancement: establishing institutional arrangements, taking stock of progress, reviewing long-term benchmarks, identifying policy measures, assessing costs and benefits, and determining specific NDC reflections. Key recommendations include aligning financial flows away from deforestation drivers, implementing REDD+, and leveraging satellite monitoring technologies.

The report concludes that Goal 6 has been achieved through the adoption of the SDGs in 2015. However, it highlights a critical gap in the measurement of SDG 15.2, noting that indicators track net rather than gross deforestation, which obscures the loss of natural forests. Additionally, it finds that targets for forest restoration, afforestation, and reforestation lack quantifiable metrics.

Mighty Earth expresses concern over the Ivorian government's plan to empty protected areas of inhabitants to combat deforestation, noting that 1.5 to 2 million people in Côte d’Ivoire and Ghana live in such areas. The organization highlights a history of abuses during evictions and argues that the global chocolate industry, which funded illegal cocoa production, has a moral responsibility to compensate expelled farmers.

The report argues that the world is falling short of the Paris Agreement's temperature goals and must prioritize international cooperation on forests. It introduces 'International Mitigation Partnerships' as a framework under Article 6 to channel finance and technical support toward natural climate solutions, specifically REDD+. The authors provide a three-part typology of these partnerships: Simple Recognition of Results, Bilateral Credit Transfer, and Multi-lateral Partnerships. The document emphasizes that such partnerships can lower the cost of climate action, support the international aviation sector's CORSIA obligations, and provide co-benefits for biodiversity and sustainable development.

The report assesses gender inequalities in Brazil, specifically within the context of forest conservation and REDD+ implementation. It identifies significant gaps in women's political representation, land ownership, and decision-making power in forest management, despite advances in education and health. The document recommends a gender-responsive Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA), the establishment of quotas for the Floresta+ Pilot Program, and the hiring of a gender specialist to ensure equitable benefit-sharing and participation in climate funding activities.

The document presents findings from the INPUT project by the Climate Policy Initiative (CPI), demonstrating that rural credit in Brazil significantly boosts agricultural productivity and municipal GDP while promoting a shift from pasture to crop land, which correlates with an increase in forested areas. It argues that rural credit can be a tool to balance economic growth with environmental protection, though it notes that the current distribution system is complex and fragmented.

The document argues that Brazil can align economic growth with natural resource protection by modernizing farming and reforming rural credit. It identifies three main directives: improving risk management for intensified production, aligning credit with the Forest Code to support public goods, and simplifying the rural credit system to reduce costs and political interference. Specific proposals include expanding credit limits for producers complying with the Forest Code in the short term, extending planning horizons to three or five years in the medium term, and gradually shifting public subsidies from credit to insurance and financial derivatives in the long term.

The IEU report covers its operational progress between November 2019 and February 2020, highlighting the completion of evaluations on country ownership and environmental and social safeguards. It details the progress of the Learning-Oriented Real-Time Impact Assessment (LORTA) programme, the publication of evidence gap maps on forestry and adaptation, and the unit's 95% budget expenditure rate for 2019.

The document examines the link between community land tenure and global sustainability goals, highlighting that while indigenous and rural communities manage over 50% of the world's land, only 10% is legally recognized. It presents evidence that secure tenure reduces deforestation and carbon emissions more cheaply than technological carbon capture. The author calls for legal reforms, simplified formalization procedures, and a more equitable playing field between communities and corporations to protect these critical carbon sinks and support rural livelihoods.

The World Resources Institute (WRI) reported total assets of $141,669,442 as of September 30, 2018, an increase from $106,449,500 in 2017. The organization's primary operating revenues for 2018 totaled $111,151,598, with the majority of expenses directed toward "Policy research, technical support, and communications programs". An independent audit by Grant Thornton LLP issued an unmodified opinion, stating the financial statements present fairly the Institute's financial position. WRI maintains a permanent endowment of $25,100,000 and operates subsidiaries in India, China, and Europe to support its focus on climate, energy, food, forests, water, and cities.

Carbon Market Watch alerts international partners to the DRC's plans to lift the moratorium on new logging concessions and secretly revise its Forest Code. The organization argues these moves, including the awarding of three concessions covering 6,500 square kilometres, threaten environmental and climatic stability, specifically peatswamps, and undermine international initiatives like CAFI and REDD+. It calls for the immediate suspension of forestry funding until a transparent process is established.

The report evaluates the SDG indicators finalized in 2017, concluding that they fail to directly measure gross forest loss or specific restoration efforts. While SDG 15.2 includes an ambitious aim to "halt deforestation," the report argues that the reliance on net rather than gross deforestation indicators weakens the target in practice. Furthermore, it notes that targets for forest restoration, afforestation, and reforestation are not quantifiable in the final SDGs, and the current indicators do not allow for specific measurement of these activities.

The assessment finds that while over USD 4.1 billion has been committed to results-based REDD+ payments, disbursements remain limited and concentrated, primarily in Brazil. It highlights the emergence of jurisdictional-sourcing initiatives across Asia, Latin America, and Africa as a promising mechanism to scale zero-deforestation commitments, though private resource flows remain small.