Since there are no currently active contests, we have switched Climate CoLab to read-only mode.
Learn more at
Skip navigation

Please find below the judging results for your proposal.

Semi-Finalist Evaluation

Judges'' ratings


Judges'' comments

It is hard to separate REDD's baseline-determination problems from the innovative proposal here. The idea has been tried before as well, with limited success. So, it is important to clarify what makes this now different. However, the proposal has the potential to create great impact, which is why there is now chance to lay out a clear roadmap for the next round. What is most appreciated is the adaptability of the authors to the anti-forest-carbon sentiment that dominates Europe (therefore the ETS). It is a difficult issue: low-marginal-cost emission reductions are so important (but politically hard in Europe), and getting REDD right without the perverse incentives is exceptionally hard. Judges argue if it is possible to incorporate a blind reverse-auction component to this plan. So, carbon-liable entity issues a Request For Proposals for a given emissions quantity and winning bidder country agrees to a standard baseline and monitoring methodology. If the plan is to only allow a quota of REDD into the market, REDD units don't need to be traded like the rest of the market. Judges then question if it could work outside the trading market on bilateral contracts that can offset up to a share of the liability.

Share conversation: Share via:
No comments have been posted.