The Nature Conservancy (TNC)

Beyond Beneficiaries: Fairer Carbon Market Frameworks

Companies are increasingly turning to carbon credits to complement their climate targets and to finance near-term reductions that are otherwise too costly or difficult to abate. Demand is expected to grow: the voluntary carbon market alone is expected to soar from a $2 billion valuation in 2021 to as much as $50 billion in 2030, while compliance carbon pricing schemes already cover almost one-quarter of global emissions. This finance could be critical at scaling transformational climate benefits and positive social change –if done well. Yet this opportunity is not without risks. Since carbon credit projects first appeared, there have been concerns about “carbon cowboys”, a term used to describe firms driving the reckless development of carbon projects for financial gain without regard to the rights of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs) and/or other local landowners. Poorly designed or outright predatory projects have resulted inland grabs, forced resettlement, loss of resource access, value extraction and exploitation, and deceptive legal agreements. Carbon credit standards (including both “voluntary” standards such as Verra and “compliance” standards like the Clean Development Mechanism) have generally tried to address these risks through a combined approach of avoiding negative outcomes (“do no harm”) and ensuring positive social outcomes. Most requirements to date have focused on safeguarding against negative impacts; more work is needed to ensure positive results and to bolster foundational aspects around the rights of IPLCs and local landowners to own and transact carbon credits – or to opt out of carbon markets if they wish. This report seeks to identify: 1.Current frameworks: Key considerations in the benefit-sharing of today (page 13) 2.Gaps: Shortcomings in current benefit-sharing approaches (page 23) 3.Standards: Snapshot of current guidance (page 33) 4.Solutions: Achieving robust IPLC partnerships (page 36) Because best practices in benefits-sharing can vary widely in different contexts, this report focuses exclusively on natural climate solutions (NCS) projects that are intended for sale in the voluntary carbon markets (VCM), with a focus on those with Indigenous Peoples and Local Community involvement.

Eligibility Requirements for REDD+ Standards and Finance

This paper provides an overview of six REDD+ standards, as well as the sources of finance for which they are eligible. Although there are additional carbon credit standards, we focus exclusively on standards with REDD+ methodologies and with an available source of finance.

Nesting REDD+ Pathways to Bridge Project and Jurisdictional Programs

This paper reflects on historic carbon market approaches to Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+), identifying common approaches to crediting REDD+ at various scales, shares case studies of existing country approaches to REDD+, and proposes future options for countries seeking to nest REDD+ at various scales. By discussing the relative merits of on-the-ground and policy-led approaches, we hope to spur new insights and discussion around the role of REDD+ crediting in the coming years. We believe more guidance around this particular issue is critical in order to advance the tools needed to reduce emissions in the next decade.

Early Lessons from Jurisdictional REDD+ and Low Emissions Development Programs

The report features eight REDD+/LED programs worldwide designed to reduce forest-related emissions, and will serve as a resource for practitioners, forest country governments, donors and others working to advance jurisdictional models at a large landscape scale.

Establishing Efficient, Equitable, and Environmentally Sound Reference Emissions Levels for REDD+: A Stock-Flow Approach

A “stock-flow” approach to reference emissions levels for REDD+ is a simple and workable option for establishing environmentally sound, efficient, and equitable incentives to reduce deforestation and forest degradation. It meets the needs of a broad set of Parties and therefore might be broadly acceptable in UNFCCC negotiations on reference levels. Further, the “stock-flow” approach offers a structured path for negotiations that avoids political gaming at the expense of environmental integrity. Countries that reduce their flow of emissions from deforestation and degradation below a historical reference emissions level would be eligible for payments as part of the results-based (or “third”) phase of REDD+. This might include market, market-linked, and non-market sources. A portion of payments for emissions reductions would be put into a “stabilization fund” that would re-allocate payments to countries based on forest carbon stocks. This approach would provide balanced incentive payments to conserve forests in both historically high- and low-deforestation countries, while maintaining a level of environmental integrity necessary for progress towards global REDD+ goals.

Curso Introductorio sobre la Reducción de las Emisiones de la Deforestación y Degradación (REDD): Manual de Recursos del Participante

Curso Introductorio sobre la Reducción de las Emisiones de la Deforestación y Degradación (REDD): Manual de Capacitación

Introductory Course on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD): A Participant Resource Manual

Introductory Course on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD): A Training Manual

Implications of REDD baseline methods for different country circumstances during an initial performance period

A paper submitted by Rane Cortez, on behalf of The Nature Conservancy. This paper compares the outcomes of seven proposed approaches to determine national baselines for measuring REDD (Compensated Reductions, Joint Research Center, Corridor Approach (V1 and V2), Combined Incentives, Stock-Flow, Terrestrial Carbon Group) as a function of country circumstances, using a retrospective analysis of FAO National Forest Resource Assessment (FRA) forest carbon emissions data. For more information contact Bronson Griscom, Forest Carbon Scientist, at: < bgriscom@tnc.org >