Search Climate Insights Directory

The Reporting for Results-based REDD+ (RRR+) project is a joint initiative by the Coalition for Rainforest Nations (CfRN) and the Climate and Development Knowledge Network (CDKN) running from 2017 to 2019. It aims to help 21 tropical and subtropical forest countries develop the technical and institutional capacity to create accurate greenhouse gas inventories for the agriculture, forestry, and other land use (AFOLU) sectors. This capacity is essential for countries to submit reports to the UNFCCC and unlock results-based REDD+ payments. The project provides tailored training based on IPCC methods, supports the submission of National Communications and Biennial Update Reports, and promotes gender equality in natural resource management.

The document details the methodology for the Global Landscape of Climate Finance 2017, defining climate finance as capital flows for low-carbon and climate-resilient development. It specifies the inclusion of mitigation, adaptation, and dual-benefit finance while excluding fossil fuel-based lower-carbon generation and private R&D. The accounting scope focuses on annual financial commitments, covering grants, loans, equity, and balance sheet financing, while excluding risk management instruments and secondary market transactions to avoid double counting. It further defines the classification of public and private finance, the data sources used (such as BNEF and OECD), and the sectoral breakdowns for mitigation and adaptation activities.

Carbon Market Watch argues that LULUCF activities are currently unfit for market mechanisms due to data uncertainty, incomplete accounting, and risks of non-permanence. The organization recommends moving toward a land-based, net-net accounting approach using historical baselines rather than projected emissions. It further proposes that LULUCF sectors be managed through non-market measures under Article 6.8 of the Paris Agreement to better integrate adaptation and sustainable development goals, while calling for the exclusion of non-permanent activities from the CDM.

The United States Mid-Century Strategy (MCS) provides a roadmap for deep decarbonization by 2050, focusing on three primary pillars: transitioning to a low-carbon energy system, enhancing the land carbon sink, and reducing non-CO2 emissions. The strategy emphasizes a combination of aggressive energy efficiency, near-complete decarbonization of the electricity grid, and the deployment of carbon removal technologies like BECCS. It argues that these goals are compatible with robust economic growth and suggests that a carbon price starting at $20 per metric ton in 2017 could put energy CO2 emissions on a consistent pathway. The report also highlights the critical role of U.S. forests and soils in sequestering carbon and the necessity of international cooperation to drive down technology costs and prevent emissions leakage.

The report identifies a set of 21 cost-effective and technically feasible policies that can enable Mexico to meet its 2030 climate goals. It proposes two scenarios: an unconditional package to reduce GHG emissions by 22% below the baseline and a conditional package for a 36% reduction. The analysis indicates that Mexico can achieve these targets while realizing significant net financial savings and public health benefits through reduced particulate matter pollution. The proposed eight-point action plan prioritizes industrial efficiency, methane capture, and carbon pricing as the most impactful interventions.

The 2016 NYDF Progress Assessment indicates a complex trend where annual net forest loss is declining, but gross tree cover loss remains steady or increasing. While corporate commitments to deforestation-free supply chains are growing, particularly for palm oil and wood, cattle and soy remain under-addressed. Restoration pledges under the Bonn Challenge and UNFCCC have increased significantly, and the Paris Agreement has formally integrated land-use and REDD+ into global climate mitigation. However, financial disbursements for results-based payments lag behind pledges, and forest governance remains a critical challenge, evidenced by a record number of killings of land and environment defenders in 2015.

The Resilient Integrated Food Systems (RIFS) project in Lao PDR aims to improve food security and nutrition for 200,000 direct beneficiaries across six vulnerable provinces. The project employs a 'farm-to-fork' value chain approach, combining climate-smart agricultural inputs, diversified farming systems, and watershed management to mitigate the impacts of floods and droughts. Key interventions include the establishment of Farmer Field Schools (FFS) for gender-responsive extension, the introduction of solar-powered irrigation, and the restoration of 60,000 hectares of land per province annually through agroforestry and reforestation. The project is structured as a 100% grant of approximately 40.79 million USD, focusing on both adaptation and mitigation through carbon sequestration.

The paper argues that relying on future large-scale negative emissions to 'undo' current carbon emissions is a high-risk strategy that may lead to insufficient near-term decarbonization. It identifies three primary risk types: technological/biophysical infeasibility, unacceptable social and ecological impacts, and the potential for sequestered carbon to be re-released or for climate impacts to become irreversible. The authors evaluate four land-based options, concluding that while ecosystem restoration and reforestation may provide some viable negative emissions, high-reliance scenarios (e.g., those requiring 1,000 Gt CO2) are likely unachievable. BECCS is highlighted as particularly risky due to unproven commercial scale and extreme land and resource requirements. The paper advocates for a 'zero fossil carbon' goal over 'net zero' to ensure aggressive immediate mitigation.

The World Resources Institute developed Global Forest Watch Water (GFW Water) to provide a public database and mapping tool for 230 major global watersheds. The tool assesses watershed health by scoring four primary risks—recent forest loss, historical forest loss, erosion, and fire—within the context of baseline water stress. It aims to support downstream beneficiaries, financing institutions, and researchers in implementing natural infrastructure, such as forest protection and restoration, to enhance water security and quality. The document details the underlying hydrologic science, the specific spatial data sets used (including Landsat imagery and the RUSLE erosion model), and the normalization process used to generate risk scores from 1 to 5.

The document outlines the procedural steps for rural properties larger than four fiscal modules to achieve environmental compliance. It details the requirements for Permanent Preservation Areas (APP) and Legal Reserves (RL), distinguishing between preserved areas and consolidated areas used before July 22, 2008. The process involves the Rural Environmental Registry (CAR) and the Environmental Regularization Program (PRA), with specific recovery options such as natural regeneration, planting native species, or compensation through Environmental Reserve Quotes (CRA).

The document argues that relying on future negative emissions to offset current insufficient climate action is a high-risk strategy. It identifies three primary risks: technological and biophysical infeasibility, unacceptable social and ecological impacts, and the potential for these measures to be less effective than expected due to reversals or irreversible climate tipping points. The authors conclude that while some land-based sequestration is possible, it cannot reach the scales often assumed in climate models without severe trade-offs.

The document outlines the accounting framework for Landscape 2015, defining climate finance as capital flows for low-carbon and climate-resilient development. It specifies the inclusion of mitigation and adaptation finance, the types of financial instruments tracked, and the distinction between public and private finance. The methodology details the data sources used, such as BNEF and OECD, and provides a comprehensive sectoral breakdown for classifying mitigation and adaptation activities. It also lists the Development Finance Institutions and Climate Funds covered, and defines the regional classifications for the destinations of these financial flows.

The document evaluates global forest restoration progress using two indicators: Bonn Challenge pledges and UNFCCC Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs). As of November 2015, Bonn Challenge commitments reached 62.6 million hectares (41.7% of the 2020 target), while UNFCCC INDCs included pledges for approximately 121.7 million hectares (35% of the 2030 target). The report notes that while commitments have increased, they are often clustered around major agreements and require a faster rate of pledging to meet targets. It also highlights significant data gaps in standardized global aggregates and the limitations of satellite imagery in detecting small-scale forest growth.

The report evaluates the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) against the objectives of the New York Declaration on Forests (NYDF). It finds that while the SDGs include a highly ambitious, quantifiable target to halt deforestation by 2020, they lack quantifiable targets for forest restoration and reforestation. The document notes that the absence of specific indicators for measuring these goals may hinder the translation of the targets into action.

The report evaluates global natural forest loss using two proxy indicators: annual gross tree cover loss (Hansen/GFW) and annual net natural forest change (FAO FRA). While FAO data suggests a declining trend in net loss that could meet the 2020 target, Hansen/GFW data indicates that gross tree cover loss has remained high and actually increased by 9% between 2010 and 2014 compared to the 2001-2010 baseline. The document highlights the critical difference between gross and net loss, noting that net accounting can mask the loss of primary forests if they are replaced by regenerated forests, which have lower carbon storage and biodiversity value.

The report analyzes the land-sector climate pledges (INDCs) of four major tropical-forest nations. It finds that while Brazil and Indonesia provide some transparency, their land-sector ambitions are low. India's submission lacks critical specifics on GDP and sequestration timing. In contrast, the Democratic Republic of the Congo is highlighted as a model for both transparency and ambition, despite its limited national capacity. The author concludes that smaller countries are generally producing better land-sector INDCs than larger emitters.

The document is a formal comment letter from a coalition of environmental groups regarding the proposed Stream Protection Rule. The authors argue that the rule fails to adequately protect stream channels from direct damage, particularly in Central Appalachia, and relies on unproven stream restoration techniques. They contend that OSMRE ignored critical factors in its analysis, including the structural decline of coal demand, the net economic drain of mining on the region, and severe public health impacts. The coalition urges the agency to retain the 1983 stream buffer zone, strengthen water quality standards, and incorporate the social cost of carbon into its environmental impact assessments.

Energy Innovation presents a set of 15 targeted policies across economy-wide, industrial, transportation, power, building, and land-use sectors. These policies, modeled via the Energy Policy Simulator, aim to reduce emissions and save the U.S. approximately $840 billion between 2016 and 2030 while positioning the country as a leader in clean energy technology.

The report analyzes Costa Rica's transition from an agricultural to an export-led economy, highlighting successes in biodiversity and renewable energy alongside critical failures in wastewater management and public transport. It argues that a lack of sustainable public infrastructure and a mismatch in workforce skills hinder the country's goal of carbon neutrality by 2021. The authors recommend streamlining public procurement, diversifying the energy mix beyond hydropower, and implementing a green industrial policy to reduce economic vulnerability to external shocks.

The report details the application of natural capital science and software tools across various sectors to integrate ecosystem services into decision-making. Key examples include the Inter-American Development Bank's infrastructure planning in Latin America, China's massive reforestation and zoning efforts, and corporate sustainability initiatives by Dow, Unilever, and Coca-Cola. It highlights the role of the Natural Capital Project's open-source tools, such as InVEST and OPAL, in quantifying the trade-offs between economic development and the preservation of natural assets like watersheds and coastal habitats.