Carbon markets were designed around the compelling premise that private finance could flow where forests are most at risk, rewarding the communities and landowners who protect them while helping companies take responsibility for their emissions. For anyone working in climate or conservation, the underlying logic still holds. The world’s forests provide essential ecosystem services, capture and store huge amounts of carbon dioxide, face enormous pressure, and need sustained economic incentives if they are to survive. So why has the voluntary carbon market so consistently fallen short of this promise? Over the past decade, the sector has faced mounting evidence that many carbon credits, particularly those issued for forest conservation in the Global South, have not delivered the climate outcomes they claimed. There have been well-documented cases of social harm to Indigenous and local communities, scientific analysis has repeatedly found that the methodologies used to calculate emissions reductions were prone to significant overestimation, and trust in the market, among both buyers and civil society, has been eroded. Military macaws (Ara militaris) flying over a forest in the Sierra Gorda. They are one of the many iconic and endangered species that call the forests of the Sierra Gorda home. Image courtesy of Roberto Pedraza Ruiz / Sierra Gorda Alliance. However, this is not a reason to abandon the idea of climate finance for nature. It is a reason to understand what has gone wrong, and to ask what a more inclusive, just, and transparent model can look like. What hasn’t worked Before…This article was originally published on Mongabay

From Conservation news via This RSS Feed.