Is carbon finance fair and effective?

Filed under - Climate governance

article image

What’s at stake?

Our planet is warming at a faster rate than it ever has, as a result of a high concentration of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere. The burning of fossil fuels is the number one cause of global warming. The second is deforestation. Trees absorb carbon dioxide and retain it for as long as they live. Cutting down trees means that that carbon is released back into the atmosphere.  

REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) is a UN-initiated scheme that aims to reduce the contribution that deforestation is making to climate change, essentially by paying tropical forest-rich countries not to cut down trees. There are two main ways in which this can happen. The first is fund-based: communities receive money as compensation for conserving forests, which they might otherwise depend on. The second is mechanism-based: the carbon that is stored in forests is represented by carbon credits which are sold on carbon markets. People or organisations that want to reduce their emissions impact can do so by purchasing REDD+ credits, and a certain percentage of the proceeds are given to forest-dwelling communities.

Sadly, many of the world’s most densely forested countries have a poor track record for corruption. In the current global economy, trees are worth a lot more cut down than they are in the ground, and politicians have been known to accept bribes – sometimes huge – to grant companies access to forest zones that should be protected. Meanwhile, some local communities have been forcefully removed from their homes in order to clear the way for forest exploitation, or have been coerced into selling their land for a fraction of its value.

REDD+ will inherit many of the corruption risks that have long beset the forestry sector, but it also brings with it new ones. Carbon is intangible, and so difficult to quantify. This opens the door to mistakes or manipulation – both of data and of people. Given the remoteness of REDD+ sites there may be no easy way of knowing whether a project on the voluntary carbon market is authentic or bogus. And forest communities may be marginalised from decision-making and profits. 

What we’re doing about it

REDD+ is very new and policy is still taking shape. This means that a lot of decisions remain to be made about how funds will be distributed, who seeks to gain what and how projects will be monitored. Designed correctly, REDD+ could be great news for the planet and rural development. Preventative Anti-Corruption Measures in REDD+ is our project aimed at ensuring that it fulfils that potential.

Based on years of experience in the forestry sector, we have designed a step-by-step guide to identifying potential REDD+ corruption vulnerabilities in countries. Our chapters are using this to pinpoint risks and tailor anti-corruption safeguards to their national contexts. Their work involves:

  • Conducting in-depth assessments of REDD+ risks and realities, both in policy-making and projects on the ground
  • Documenting best and poor practice scenarios to feed into an evolving set of policy recommendations
  • Working with partners in government and civil society to contribute to the development of locally appropriate and corruption-resilient REDD+ schemes
  • Raising awareness in local communities about the advantages and risks presented by REDD+, and enhancing their ability to monitor financial flows, decision-making and project implementation

Who’s involved

The project is currently being rolled out by:

Our chapters are working with partners in government and the private sector to sensitise them to problem areas and build momentum for proactive reform. We are also talking to key players in the field of carbon finance: from the UN, to multilateral development banks, to carbon trading bodies. And to maximise our impact, we’ve teamed up with a number of civil society organisations working on similar issues.

Our approach

The basic tenets of a REDD+ anti-corruption strategy are:

  • Transparency: ensuring that people know what decisions have been made and why, and publishing detailed and easy-to-access information on policy, projects and money flows
  • Accountability: guaranteeing clear roles and responsibilities so that people are answerable for their actions
  • Integrity: enforcing codes of conduct to ensure that staff involved in REDD-related activities act ethically and within the law, and are penalised for wrongdoing
  • Independence: making sure that people or institutions have nothing personal to gain from a particular project or policy. Third party oversight will help guard against this.
  • Capacity: ensuring institutions are sufficiently resourced and have the necessary skills to carry out their work fairly and effectively 

Timeline

  • February 2011: Our project kick-off meeting took place in Indonesia.
  • May 2011: we hosted a meeting of experts in the field of corruption and REDD+ in Berlin during which the outline of the REDD integrity manual was drafted.
  • October 2011: we hosted a joint training for civil society in Asia with UNREDD in Bangkok and in April 2012 we did the same for African civil society in Lusaka, Zambia. During these meetings civil society organisations learned how to use our REDD+ integrity manual.
  • December 2011: We attended the 17th Conference of the Parties (COP17) in Durban, where we actively participated in Forest Day. Together with three other institutions, we took the lead in the issues market place group looking at how REDD+ is unfolding on the ground and led a discussion on the risks posed by corruption for REDD+.
  • 2012: At the Rio+20 UN Conference on Sustainable Development our Chair, Huguette Labelle, contacted the Rio+20 Bureau and Secretariat and Members of the UN High Level Panel on Global Sustainability upon our request. She sent this letter accompanied by Transparency International’s suggested amendments to the Rio +20 outcome document, and our Working Paper, ‘Putting climate finance on the Rio+20 agenda.’ Our chapters actively pressured their national delegations on these issues, and mobilised civil society support regionally.
  • 2013: Three national REDD+ risk assessments released: Indonesia | Papua New Guinea | Vietnam

More…

Contact us

Claire Martin, Programme Manager (Acting)
cmartin@transparency.org

Leah Good, Programme Officer
lgood@transparency.org

Brice Böhmer, Programme Coordinator
bboehmer@transparency.org



Country / Territory - International   |   Indonesia   |   Papua New Guinea   |   Vietnam   
Region - Global   |   Asia Pacific   
Language(s) - English   
Topic - Climate governance   |   Environment   |   Forestry   
Tags - Climate finance   |   REDD   |   Climate change mitigation   |   Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation   |   Deforestation   |   PAC REDD   |   Forestry governance   |   REDD+   

Related news

To conserve forests, climate funds must cut out corruption

If REDD+ works, it could slow climate change. To make that happen, climate funds need to take corruption seriously.

Getting down to details on the fight against climate change

As a new UN report highlights the risks of global warming, we share highlights from our climate finance integrity talks.

28
Feb
2014

Transparency International warns that billions of climate change dollars face corruption risk

New reports show 7 of the bigger, multinational climate funds must do more to promote transparency, accountability and integrity.

Climate change funds: safe from corruption?

Global funds to fight climate change are vital, but is enough being done to protect them from corruption?

Related publications

Publication cover image

Protecting climate finance: An anti-corruption assessment of the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility

Protecting Climate Finance: An Anti-Corruption Assessment of the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility is the last in a series of reports by ...

Report published – Jul 2014

Publication cover image

Protecting climate finance: An anti-corruption assessment of the UN-REDD Programme

Protecting Climate Finance: An Anti-Corruption Assessment of the UN-REDD Programme is the fourth in a series of reports by Transparency International ...

Report published – Feb 2014

Related blog posts

Bangladesh: Cutting off our heads to cure a headache?


Three years ago my team visited Khulna, a district in the southern coastal region of Bangladesh. We went to ... [read more]

Posted on 03 Jul 2014 by M. Zakir Hossain Khan

Corruption must not capsize a sinking state: shoring up the Maldives’ climate sector


In 2011 the then-president of the Maldives, Mohamed Nasheed, held a televised cabinet meeting underwater. ... [read more]

Posted on 13 Jan 2014 by Alice Harrison

Drawing connections with cartoons: on the campaign trail in Papua New Guinea


Michael was the only person in the village who could speak English. He had learned it in Australia, and talked ... [read more]

Posted on 09 Aug 2013 by Alice Harrison

REDD+: what you see isn’t always what you get


A colleague recently likened his experience tracking climate and REDD+ money in Mexico to an archaeological ... [read more]

Posted on 02 Aug 2013 by Alice Harrison

The Green Climate Fund – bringing the world of ideas to the board room


The World Bank is a leading heavyweight in development investment, presiding over US$30 – $40 billion ... [read more]

Posted on 24 Apr 2013 by Alice Harrison