Abbey Abramson

  Risks and emergency management in climate change Speed without “disaster capitalism”: designing controls that survive the rush Pre-disaster contracts and vendor pools The IFRC ’s Emergency Response Framework and DREF guidance say rapid response means higher risk. But this risk can be managed. Pre-qualified vendor pools, framework agreements, and vetted specifications speed procurement while reducing collusion (IFRC, 2025; IFRC DREF, 2020). Radical transparency defaults Adopt a 10-day rule : Publish every emergency contract within ten days with the supplier, including unit prices, quantities, delivery evidence, and beneficial owners. Where countries adopted ProZorro-style open data and dashboards, competition widened and savings increased (OCP, 2024; OCP impact story: Ukraine).  Emergency awards should auto-check ownership against sanctions and past performance. Blacklists should be centralized and public. Otherwise, suspended firms return under new names. The International ...

  Turning public data into public power Practical guide: turning public data into public power This section serves as a guide for citizens, journalists, and civil society organizations to independently verify, analyze, and advocate for greater transparency in climate and environmental projects. Treat each step as part of an iterative learning loop—ask, test, refine, and repeat. By viewing these practical actions as a continuous process—from setting baselines to publishing replication files—you can transform open data into meaningful oversight and accountability, echoing the Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning (MEL) principles discussed earlier. Step 1 — Pin down the baseline (don’t move the goalposts). Before accepting “impact,” ask: Impact against what? For floods : historic water-level or depth maps per neighborhood; baseline water-logging days. For nature-based projects: initial canopy cover and species-site plan per plot; survival targets at 12 & 36 months. Document data ...

  Climate change projects for carbon emissions mitigation Carbon projects: baseline gaming and benefit-sharing opacity Nature-based carbon projects (e.g., REDD+ and voluntary offset schemes) can strengthen financing for forests—if their numbers are credible and if communities share in the benefits. A growing empirical record reveals systemic weaknesses in baselines, leakage, permanence, and safeguards, resulting in over-credited projects that deliver minimal real climate benefits (West et al., 2024; Berkeley Carbon Trading/Carbon Market Watch; The Guardian/Reuters, 2024–2025). Two recurring integrity gaps: Baselines and additionality. “Elastic methodologies” allow developers to set inflated deforestation baselines, so that mere continuation of the status quo yields large credits (CMW, 2023; West et al., 2024). Benefit-sharing and land rights. Where tenure is contested or community voice is weak, revenue distribution becomes opaque, fueling conflict and undermining stewardship (CI...

Protecting mangroves and forest projects Forests, Water, and the Green Mirage Why “green” can go wrong Reforestation drives, mangrove plantings , and watershed protection programs are often highlighted in national climate plans. On paper, they promise carbon storage, coastal protection, cooler microclimates, and resilient water supplies. In practice, many become green mirages—projects that appear promising in photos but fail to survive a single dry season, storm surge, or budget cycle. The reasons are clear: sapling scams , inflated survival rates, species planted in the wrong places, and contracts that pay for “number of trees planted” rather than for ecosystems restored. Land-tenure conflicts and weak law enforcement widen the gap between spending and real protection. UNDP’s work on corruption risks in adaptation and REDD+ warned of this dynamic over a decade ago, and the risks remain current (UNDP, 2010/2015). This chapter focuses on three fronts where integrity failures are common...