Search Climate Insights Directory

The briefing argues that the EU must move beyond simply cleaning up its own supply chains to create 'win-win' Forest Partnerships with developing countries. These partnerships should address root causes of deforestation—such as poverty and weak land tenure—while supporting Indigenous Peoples, small-scale producers, and nature-based solutions to meet Paris Agreement and CBD objectives. The authors recommend leveraging the Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument (NDICI) for funding and using 'Forest Diplomacy' to encourage other major consuming regions to adopt similar measures.

ClientEarth advocates for a mandatory due diligence framework for all companies placing forest-risk commodities on the EU market, arguing that such a measure would be more effective than voluntary schemes or certification. The organization emphasizes that due diligence must extend beyond mere compliance with producer-country laws to include the protection of indigenous peoples' land rights and other natural ecosystems. Additionally, ClientEarth calls for the inclusion of the financial sector in the legislation, the strengthening of forest partnerships with producer countries, and the reform of Free Trade Agreements to ensure binding environmental and social standards.

A coalition of civil society organisations advocates for a more ambitious EU regulation on deforestation-free products. They propose expanding the scope to include other natural ecosystems like peatlands and savannahs, broadening the list of covered commodities to include all livestock, rubber, and maize, and implementing stricter due diligence requirements. The statement emphasizes the need for mandatory traceability to the plot of land, the removal of 'simplified' due diligence, and the inclusion of civil and criminal liability for non-compliance to protect indigenous peoples' rights and global biodiversity.

The document identifies a critical legal gap in Ghana: while the Environmental Protection Act, 2025 (Act 1124) regulates carbon market operations, it does not define who owns forest carbon. Consequently, ownership is currently inferred from a complex mix of land tenure, tree tenure, and customary law. The briefing analyzes two competing legal classifications—treating carbon as an ecosystem service versus a natural resource—and argues that the chosen model significantly impacts whether local farmers and communities receive direct benefits. It recommends a hybrid approach that maintains State regulatory oversight while statutorily guaranteeing benefit entitlements for those who steward the forests, utilizing Community Resource Management Areas (CREMAs) as a practical delivery mechanism.

The document argues that forest-based carbon credits should be treated as financial contributions to climate action rather than offsets for fossil emissions. It recommends shifting support from individual projects to jurisdictional programs to drive large-scale policy change, reduce leakage, and ensure better environmental integrity. The author emphasizes the need for conservative baselines, comprehensive social and environmental safeguards, and the full involvement of Indigenous Peoples and local communities, including the requirement for Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC).

Friends of the Earth International (FoEI) opposes REDD, arguing that carbon markets and financial incentives fail to address the root causes of climate change and instead lead to 'green grabbing' and the erosion of traditional forest management. The document contends that REDD shifts responsibility away from industrialized nations and threatens the land rights and cultural values of forest-dependent populations. FoEI proposes an alternative based on the legal recognition of Indigenous and community land rights, collective forest management, and a structural transition away from fossil fuels based on climate justice.

The report evaluates global deforestation and degradation trends against a 2030 target, noting that while some regions show modest declines, overall progress is insufficient. It highlights that only Tropical Asia is currently on track to meet the goal, and emphasizes that reforestation cannot compensate for the loss of primary forests in terms of carbon and biodiversity.

The document provides the technical annexes for the Forest Declaration Assessment, detailing the definitions and methodologies used to measure deforestation, forest degradation, and restoration potential. It establishes a 'gross zero' deforestation benchmark for 2030, requiring a linear 10 percent annual reduction in loss relative to a 2018-2020 baseline. The methodology incorporates satellite data and econometric models to estimate GHG emissions from forest loss and identifies 'cost-effective' restoration potential based on a carbon price threshold of USD 100/tCO2eq. A provided table lists the 30 countries with the highest absolute levels of deforestation in 2021, showing varied trends such as a 3% increase in Brazil and a 25% decrease in Indonesia compared to the baseline.

The New York Declaration on Forests (NYDF) is a commitment to end natural forest loss and degradation by 2030 and restore 350 million hectares of forest landscapes. The declaration identifies agricultural commodities, infrastructure, and mining as primary drivers of deforestation and emphasizes the central role of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities in forest protection. Achieving these goals is framed as a cost-effective climate solution capable of mitigating over 7 billion tonnes of CO2e annually by 2030, supporting the Paris Agreement's 1.5°C warming limit.

The New York Declaration on Forests outlines goals to halve the rate of natural forest loss by 2020 and end it by 2030, while restoring hundreds of millions of hectares of degraded land. It emphasizes the role of forests in sequestering carbon to limit global warming to 2°C and targets the elimination of deforestation driven by commodity production such as soy, palm oil, and cattle.

The New York Declaration on Forests (NYDF) establishes a framework for global action to end natural forest loss and degradation by 2030. It identifies commodity-driven deforestation as a primary driver and emphasizes the central role of indigenous peoples and local communities in forest protection. The declaration sets specific targets for the private sector to eliminate deforestation from commodity production and aims to restore 350 million hectares of degraded landscapes. Achieving these goals is presented as a critical component of limiting global warming to 1.5°C, with a potential mitigation impact of over 7 billion tonnes of CO2e per year by 2030.

The world is off track to meet its 2030 forest goals, with global deforestation increasing by 4% in 2022. While some non-tropical regions met their targets, all tropical regions missed theirs, with Tropical Latin America and the Caribbean being the farthest off track. Primary tropical forest loss and emissions from deforestation also increased, while biodiversity continues to decline at an alarming rate. Forest restoration efforts remain fragmented and lack transparency, and forest degradation continues to pose a significant threat globally.

The world is off track to meet 2025 and 2030 forest goals, with commodity-driven deforestation increasing by 5.6% in 2022. While some leading agricultural companies and governments (notably the EU) are taking action, overall impact is limited by low political priority, insufficient corporate transparency in extractives, and systemic risks to environmental defenders.

The world is off track to meet 2025 and 2030 forest goals, with commodity-driven deforestation increasing by 5.6% in 2022. While some leading agricultural companies and EU regulations show progress, most governments deprioritize forests in macroeconomic planning, and the mining sector lacks transparency. Indigenous Peoples and local communities have increased international awareness but face severe violence and funding gaps. Collaborative jurisdictional efforts are emerging but remain in early stages.

The Green Climate Fund (GCF) Accreditation Panel (AP) recommends the accreditation of Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH (APL038) for international access under a fast-track process. GIZ is recommended for a 'medium' project size limit (up to USD 250 million), medium environmental and social risk (Category B/I-2), and specific fiduciary functions including project management and grant award mechanisms. The recommendation is conditional upon GIZ submitting an operational manual detailing its fiduciary due diligence process, specifically regarding 'know your customer' and anti-money laundering (AML) standards. The assessment highlights GIZ's global presence in over 130 countries and its track record of managing approximately 1,300 projects as of December 2014, with 40% being climate-related.

The document outlines the technical guidelines for the Simplified Approval Process (SAP) for REDD+, designed to help countries meet UNFCCC requirements and implement innovative demonstration activities to access results-based payments (RBP). It specifies a mandatory two-component project structure: one focused on UNFCCC compliance (such as national forest monitoring systems and strategies) and another on innovative field-level demonstrations (such as private sector investment and sustainable forest management). The guide emphasizes a landscape approach to address deforestation and forest degradation while ensuring minimal environmental and social risk.

The document outlines the indicators and reporting requirements for measuring the performance of REDD+ activities to trigger results-based payments from the Green Climate Fund. It specifies that emissions reductions and carbon stock increases are measured in tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (tCO2eq) across five specific REDD+ activities. Disbursement of payments is contingent upon compliance with UNFCCC decisions, including technical analysis of results, emission reference levels, safeguard summaries, national strategies, and forest monitoring systems.

The European Union and United Kingdom are developing legislative frameworks to prevent the import and export of commodities linked to deforestation. The EU's proposal focuses on a phased due diligence system for specific commodities (cattle, cocoa, coffee, palm oil, soy, and wood) and a country-based risk benchmarking system. The UK's Environment Act 2021 establishes a broader framework where specific high-risk commodities and due diligence requirements will be defined through secondary regulations. Both approaches face challenges regarding WTO compliance, the administrative burden on smallholders in developing countries, and the need for transition periods.

The document provides an educational overview of REDD+, explaining its goal of providing financial incentives to developing countries to reduce carbon emissions by protecting forests. It details the debate over reference levels and funding mechanisms—specifically carbon markets versus a dedicated REDD+ fund—while highlighting significant risks to Indigenous peoples, such as forced evictions and the devaluation of non-monetary forest values. The guide compares the safeguards of UN-REDD and the World Bank, noting that UN-REDD's standards are generally stronger, though implementation remains a concern.

A joint statement by 45 Indonesian organizations calling for the acceleration of sustainable commodity governance to meet EUDR requirements and global market demands, emphasizing the need for inclusive support for smallholders and Indigenous Peoples.