Search Climate Insights Directory

The statement criticizes the Santa Rita hydroelectric project in Guatemala's Alta Verapaz region, alleging that the project ignores the legal requirement for prior indigenous community consent and has led to human rights violations, intimidation, and environmental degradation. It highlights a pattern of criminalization of local leaders and lack of benefit for native populations, arguing that such projects contradict the Clean Development Mechanism's (CDM) goal of promoting sustainable development.

The Effort Sharing Decision (ESD) covers approximately 60% of EU greenhouse gas emissions, focusing on sectors like transport, buildings, and agriculture. The document argues that the 2013-2020 targets were too weak, leading to a projected surplus of 600 million tons of CO2-eq by 2020. It recommends that the 2030 framework significantly increase targets to at least 45% below 2005 levels, exclude international offsets, and maintain a separate pillar for land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) to avoid undermining overall climate ambition.

The report analyzes the implementation of the Effort Sharing Decision (ESD), which targets non-ETS sectors responsible for nearly 60% of EU emissions. While 15 Member States are projected to over-achieve their 2020 targets, others face significant gaps, particularly in road transport and buildings. The document highlights that while the overall EU 2020 target is likely to be met, several countries rely on flexibility mechanisms or planned additional measures rather than existing policies to close their emission gaps.

The document details the Effort Sharing Decision (ESD), which manages greenhouse gas reduction targets for EU Member States in sectors not covered by the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS). It explains how targets are set based on GDP per capita, the role of Annual Emission Allocation units (AEAus), and the specific reporting and compliance cycles managed by the European Commission. The report also outlines seven flexibility options—including banking, borrowing, and the use of Kyoto units—and discusses how the ESD interacts with other EU directives on renewable energy and energy efficiency, as well as the Kyoto Protocol.

The statement argues that the CDM currently functions as a zero-sum offsetting mechanism that may increase global emissions due to non-additional credits. It recommends a shift toward achieving 'net atmospheric benefits' and proposes rigorous reforms to additionality assessments, the exclusion of high-emission technologies like coal, and the establishment of formal grievance mechanisms and enhanced civil society participation. The author also calls for greater transparency from Designated National Authorities (DNAs) and a restructured CDM Executive Board to prevent conflicts of interest.

Carbon Market Watch recommends that the European Council increase the EU's 2030 greenhouse gas reduction target to at least 55% and permanently remove the surplus of over 2.5 billion emissions allowances in the EU ETS. The organization warns that carrying over this surplus could weaken the 40% target to a de facto 33% reduction. It further argues against the use of international offsets due to poor environmental quality and cautions that including land-use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) sectors as net sinks would undermine the effectiveness of the GHG target.

A coalition of environmental organisations calls on the European Commission to exclude international offset credits from the 2030 climate and energy framework to prioritise domestic abatement. The letter argues that offsets previously contributed to a surplus of over two billion allowances in the EU ETS and undermined climate goals, suggesting that a 2030 target of 55% carbon emission cuts, 45% renewable energy share, and 40% energy savings is necessary.

Carbon Market Watch advocates for a domestic greenhouse gas reduction target of at least 55% by 2030 for Europe. The briefing argues that international offsetting is a 'major policy failure' that undermines domestic abatement and calls for the expiration of the estimated 2 billion surplus allowances and offsets accumulated up to 2020. It further recommends increasing the 'linear reduction factor' for permits in the EU ETS and implementing strict safeguards for any future linking with external carbon markets to prevent the import of substandard credits.

Carbon Market Watch warns that a leaked draft of the 2030 Council Conclusions contains 'technical loopholes' that could reduce the effective EU greenhouse gas emission reduction target from 40% to as low as 26%. The organization specifically criticizes the potential banking of 'phantom pollution rights' (surplus allowances), the use of afforestation offsets for agriculture, the dynamic allocation of free permits to industry, and the possible inclusion of transport fuels in the EU ETS.

The SB 40 conference in Bonn saw limited progress on reforming Kyoto Protocol mechanisms and defining a framework for various mitigation approaches, though 60 nations agreed to phase out fossil fuels by mid-century. Negotiations on the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and Joint Implementation (JI) were largely postponed to future sessions in Lima, while discussions continued on including land-use sectors in the CDM and the role of local stakeholder consultation.

The workshop brought together 60 participants from India and Nepal to evaluate the shortcomings of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and explore the potential of Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs). Participants emphasized the need to integrate human rights and robust safeguards into the 2015 Paris climate agreement and the Indian national policy framework. Key outcomes included the agreement to form a civil society working group to coordinate demands for the Indian government and the decision to write an open letter to Prime Minister Modi ahead of COP 20.

The COP19 analysis by Carbon Market Watch describes the conference as demoralizing due to the influence of corporate interests and the lowering of climate targets by countries like Japan. While the conference established a mechanism for loss and damage and made progress on REDD+ safeguards and funding, it failed to reach decisions on future carbon markets, the Framework for Various Approaches (FVA), or the New Market Mechanism (NMM). The document also notes that reforms to the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and Joint Implementation (JI) were largely postponed, though some guidance on stakeholder consultation for the CDM was improved.

An open letter from civil society organisations to Dr Jim Yong Kim arguing that the IFC's action plan for financial sector lending fails to address critical gaps in accountability and risk management. The authors highlight that the IFC cannot currently determine if financial intermediary investments cause harm to the environment or local communities, despite these investments accounting for nearly 20 per cent of World Bank Group annual commitments. They call for a fundamental rethink of the IFC's investment strategy, including independent input and participatory consultation with affected communities.

A coalition of civil society organisations calls for the UNFCCC to implement formal rules to prevent the fossil fuel industry and major polluters from influencing climate policy. The letter highlights the problematic presence of corporate partners and coal industry lobbyists at COP19 in Warsaw, arguing that their commercial interests are irreconcilable with ambitious climate action. The authors suggest following the World Health Organisation's model for excluding the tobacco industry from public health policy-making.

The Climate Action Network (CAN) emphasizes the urgency of reducing emissions due to a shrinking global carbon budget, calling for developed countries to lead in finance and mitigation. CAN highlights that 66 developing countries—representing a fifth of global CO2 emissions—either lack pledges or have NAMAs that are not specific enough for quantification, and urges all developing nations to adopt common rules for baselines and monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV).

The Climate Action Network (CAN) argues that the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) has underperformed, likely delivering only 40% of the emission reductions it sold and failing to provide sustainable development benefits. To address these failures, CAN proposes four urgent reforms: reforming additionality requirements and shortening crediting periods; excluding large-scale power projects and climate-damaging technologies like coal; establishing a grievance mechanism for local stakeholders to protect human rights; and creating a monitoring mechanism to improve sustainable development contributions.

The Climate Action Network (CAN) argues that the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and Joint Implementation (JI) have failed to deliver real emissions reductions, potentially contributing to an increase of 1 billion tons of global emissions. The statement demands fundamental reforms to additionality requirements, the mandate of net atmospheric benefits, and improved governance, while specifically calling for a halt to the issuance of JI offsets during the interim period.

The letter urges UNFCCC delegates to establish clear requirements for mitigation to stay below 2 degrees warming and to implement strict safeguards for carbon markets. Specifically, it calls for the rejection of a pilot phase for trading units under the Framework for Various Approaches (FVA), the creation of an international accounting framework to prevent double counting, and the exclusion of non-additional projects and coal power from the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM).

Carbon Market Watch argues that the Joint Implementation (JI) mechanism has a poor track record, noting that countries with large AAU surpluses have issued millions of credits without integrity or climate benefits. Following the decision in Doha to merge the two JI tracks and establish guiding principles for additionality, the organization proposes four specific reforms: halting the issuance of Emission Reduction Units (ERUs) during the interim period, requiring a review procedure at the registration stage, strengthening criteria for baseline setting and additionality, and implementing procedures to renew crediting periods.

Carbon Market Watch argues that the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) should not provide emissions credits to new coal power plants, asserting that such projects undermine climate goals, cause significant ecological damage, and lack additionality because efficiency improvements are driven by fuel cost minimization rather than CDM support.