Rwanda and Singapore’s bilateral climate agreement— a boost to nature-based climate action?

By Jean Baptiste Ndabananiye

As Sub-Saharan Africa is facing mounting climate challenges, governments are seeking innovative solutions that can both address environmental crises and unlock sustainable development. In this regard, a “significant milestone” was reached on May 6, 2025, when the Governments of Rwanda and Singapore signed an Implementation Agreement under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement.

The Agreement, signed on the sidelines of Ecosperity Week 2025 in Singapore, builds on a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) signed in December 2023 at COP (Conference of the Parties) 28 in Dubai. The agreement is expected to lay the foundation for trading high-quality carbon credits between the two nations and encourages public-private partnerships, investments, and technological innovation in climate action.

Ecosperity Week is an annual conference bringing together key decision-makers from both the public and private sectors with a shared vision to build a vibrant ecosystem that could accelerate climate action and promote a just transition. Life In Humanity has obtained all the information relating to the signing from a press release shared by Basile Uwimana—the Communication and Outreach Specialist within Rwanda’s Ministry of the Environment.

The agreement involves carbon credit projects

The cooperation between Singapore and Rwanda allows the transfer of carbon credits under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement.

Grace Fu Hai Yien serves as Singapore’s Minister for Sustainability and the Environment and Minister-in-charge of Trade Relations. During a bilateral meeting where both parties reaffirmed their strategic partnership and assessed ways to expand joint efforts, Fu stated “Over the years, Singapore and Rwanda have strengthened cooperation in forward-looking areas such as digital economy and fintech. Climate change is a new and emerging area of collaboration given the existential challenges that we are facing globally.

This Implementation Agreement builds on our existing partnership and represents a concrete step in operationalising the Paris Agreement. I look forward to companies utilising this Agreement to develop high-quality carbon credit projects under Article 6 to accelerate climate action.”

Carbon credit projects are environmental initiatives designed to reduce, remove, or avoid greenhouse gas emissions—such as planting trees, restoring wetlands, or switching to renewable energy. These projects generate carbon credits which represent metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO₂) or its equivalent that has been reduced or removed from the atmosphere.

Organizations or countries can buy these credits to offset their own emissions and meet climate goals. In short, carbon credit projects are efforts that help to fight climate change by earning tradable credits through verified reductions in emissions. One carbon credit corresponds to one metric ton of CO₂ or its equivalent in other greenhouse gases that has been reduced, removed, or avoided from being emitted into the atmosphere.

The purchase of carbon credits is a financial transaction, where the buyer supports emission-reduction projects and receives credits that prove their environmental impact is neutralized. In this context, the term “credit” refers to a certificate or unit that represents the reduction or removal of one metric ton of CO₂ or its equivalent in other greenhouse gases.

A carbon credit acts as a proof of emission reduction. When an organization or individual purchases a carbon credit, they are essentially paying for the certified reduction of one ton of CO₂ (or its equivalent) by a specific project, such as reforestation, renewable energy, or other green initiatives. “Credit” here signifies that the buyer is credited with cancelling out carbon emissions they are responsible for, through the purchased carbon credit.

Investopedia defines a carbon credit as a permit that allows the owner to emit a certain amount of carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases. “One credit allows the emission of one ton of carbon dioxide or the equivalent of other greenhouse gases (GHGs). Carbon credits are also known as carbon allowances. The ultimate goal of the carbon credit system is to reduce the emission of GHGs into the atmosphere. Carbon credits were devised as a mechanism to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The United Nations allows countries a certain number of credits, and each nation is responsible for issuing, monitoring, and reporting its carbon credit status annually.”

It adds “Governments allow companies to emit a set amount of GHGs before needing to purchase credits. If emissions exceed limits, they are required to buy credits. If a company purchases too many credits, it can sell the excess on a carbon exchange or marketplace. This system is commonly called a cap-and-trade program.” Life In Humanity will come back to this particular subject of carbon credits, with an article exclusively meant for it, since there remain a lot of unanswered questions.

Carbon markets and nature-based climate action

The agreement offers a concrete example of how nature-based solutions (NBS) ought to be replicated in Sub-Saharan Africa. This region is grappling with climate change consequences, while it is also experiencing financial difficulties, among other key challenges. Such an agreement can be a solution in this region. The agreement aims to facilitate the trade of high-integrity carbon credits between the two nations— a mechanism that certainly entails channeling investment into nature-focused climate projects such as reforestation, wetland restoration, and sustainable agriculture.

The agreement exemplifies how NBS and international carbon credit trading can work hand-in-hand to direct investment toward climate-resilient, nature-centered projects in regions like Sub-Saharan Africa, aligning with national climate commitments under the Paris Agreement.

The press release reads “This agreement establishes a framework for Rwanda and Singapore to work together by trading high-quality carbon credits. It shows the commitment to cutting emissions while also attracting investment, encouraging innovation, and supporting sustainable development. This bilateral cooperation not only supports Singapore’s efforts to meet its climate targets through credible, verified offsets, but also unlocks investment, innovation, and green jobs in Rwanda. It reinforces both countries’ Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) under the Paris Agreement.”

NDCs are every country’s own climate action plan under the Paris Agreement. NBS are actions that protect, sustainably manage, and restore natural or modified ecosystems to address societal challenges such as climate change, food security, or disaster risk. They work by leveraging nature’s processes—like trees storing carbon or wetlands filtering water—to provide environmental, social, and economic benefits. NBS can complement traditional infrastructure and often deliver cost-effective, long-term resilience while supporting biodiversity and livelihoods.

Traditional infrastructure is often also called gray infrastructure. The U.S. Environment Protection Agency defines gray infrastructure as traditional stormwater infrastructure in the built environment such as gutters, drains, pipes, and retention basins. It refers to human-engineered systems built using concrete, steel, and other industrial materials to deliver essential services.

Other examples of traditional or gray infrastructure include dams, roads, drainage systems, flood barriers, water treatment plants, and buildings. These structures are designed to control or manage natural processes like water flow or temperature, but often lack flexibility and ecological benefits that NBS provide.

That is why, a 19 February 2025 report— entitled “Growing Resilience: Unlocking the Potential of Nature-Based Solutions for Climate Resilience in Sub-Saharan Africa” by the World Bank Group (WBG) and the World Resource Institute (WRI), with key contributions from the African Development Bank— states “Communities, governments, civil society, and donors across the continent are increasingly embracing nature-based solutions (NBS) to enhance climate resilience. From integrating trees into farmlands, restoring wetlands, protecting coral reefs, and restoring nature in urban areas, these projects address critical infrastructure gaps for water quality, flood mitigation, and erosion control.  In some cases, NBS can be integrated with traditional gray infrastructure to draw on the complementary strengths of each approach.”

This partnership between Rwanda and Singapore reflects a shared recognition that expanding nature-based solutions through carbon markets can simultaneously address climate challenges and unlock economic opportunities in vulnerable regions.

Rwanda’s Minister of Environment, Dr. Valentine Uwamariya, emphasized that this cooperation paves the way for “high-integrity carbon markets” and “sustainable development,” aligning closely with recommendations in the WBG and the WRI’s report on unlocking NBS for resilience in Sub-Saharan Africa. As countries seek credible offsets, nature-based projects can become valuable assets—delivering both emissions reductions and resilience benefits for vulnerable communities.

While the full details of Rwanda’s emission reduction programs under this agreement have not been rendered public, Singapore says that it will authorize the use of eligible carbon credits toward its national climate targets. These carbon credits must represent emissions reductions and removals that are real, verified, and additional. They must also come from projects that generate benefits in line with the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

A global call to action

As the climate crisis intensifies, the world is being urged to scale up ambitious, equitable, and cooperative responses that leave no region behind. Despite contributing the least to global emissions, Africa stands on the frontlines of climate vulnerability—a fact highlighted by both science and voices like the Ugandan climate justice activist Vanessa Nakate. With Rwanda joining Singapore in a landmark agreement to implement high-integrity carbon markets, a strong signal is being sent: global climate action must be collaborative, inclusive, and rooted in justice.

Climate Impact Partners is a global leader in the voluntary carbon market, specializing in developing and delivering high-quality carbon offset projects that help organizations meet their climate goals. A carbon market constitutes a system where carbon credits are bought and sold. This organization was formed from the merger of two pioneering firms—Natural Capital Partners and ClimateCare. Climate Impact Partners has cited Nakate, as saying “Africa produces a very small fraction of global greenhouse gas emissions. Yet, climate change threatens to expose up to 118 million of the poorest Africans to droughts, floods and extreme heat by 2030.”

Rwanda becomes the second African country, after Ghana, to sign such a bilateral agreement with Singapore. The Straits Times is affirmed to be the most prominent and widely read English-language newspaper in Singapore, established in 1845. This media house owned by SPH Media and serving as the newspaper of record for the country reports that Singapore has also inked implementation agreements with Papua New Guinea, Ghana, Bhutan, Peru and Chile.

The press release states “The Rwanda–Singapore Implementation Agreement stands as a leading example of South–Southeast cooperation in putting Article 6 of the Paris Agreement into practice, embodying a shared commitment to climate ambition through action, equity, and sustainable development.

Rwanda and Singapore will now focus on implementing the Agreement through high-quality carbon credit projects that deliver real climate and development benefits. A joint working group will guide this collaboration, with a focus on environmental integrity, innovation, and private sector engagement.”

As we highlighted in this article: While Rwanda’s nature and climate finance strategy stands bold, global action remains necessary, global action remains indispensable, if we are to see meaningful progress in addressing the climate crisis. While Singapore has accomplished commendable efforts in climate finance, powerful nations that account for a disproportionately large share of global greenhouse gas emissions should be investing far more aggressively.

Rwanda’s bold steps can serve as inspiration, but without parallel commitment from the world’s largest polluters, such efforts will barely shift the global needle. Climate change, as thoroughly discussed, represents a collective responsibility—one that cannot be solved by exemplary action from the few while others delay or deflect. It is therefore imperative that industrialized nations not only follow certain countries like Singapore and even Rwanda’s examples but surpass the contributions of smaller states like Singapore in both ambition and financing.

In its story updated on January 2, 2024 and headlined “As climate chaos accelerates, which countries are polluting the most?”, the CNN points out “Data from Climate Action Tracker, an independent research group, reveals how much planet-heating pollution was spewed out in 2022, who were the biggest polluters and how much progress still needs to be made. The world pumped out around 50 billion metric tons of planet-heating gases in 2022, according to this data. China was the largest climate polluter, making up nearly 30% of global emissions.

Most of the world’s planet-heating pollution comes from just a few countries. The top 20 global climate polluters — dominated by China, India, the United States and the European Union — were responsible for 83% of emissions in 2022. What these countries do to respond to the climate crisis has an outsized impact on the rest of the world. The world is heading toward nearly 3 degrees of global warming, even if current climate policies are met, the United Nations has warned. Under the 2015 Paris Agreement, countries pledged to keep global warming below 2 degrees Celsius, with the ambition of limiting it to 1.5 degrees Celsius.”

The sentence “What these countries do to respond to the climate crisis has an outsized impact on the rest of the world” conveys the core message that their actions are disproportionately colossal. Because of their massive economies, large populations, and high greenhouse gas emissions, countries like the United States, China, and India play a disproportionately large role in shaping the future of the planet’s climate. Their decisions—whether to continue polluting or to invest in clean energy—can either accelerate global warming or significantly decelerate it, affecting everyone on the Earth.

What are these countries implementing to save the planet and what should they execute to do so? This is a question that Life In Humanity will detail in one of our upcoming editions.

With their immense share in global greenhouse gas emissions, these countries wield disproportionate influence over the trajectory of climate change. Their choices—whether ambitious or apathetic—shape not just their own futures, but determine the fate of vulnerable nations already bearing the brunt of climate disruption.

Thus, while Rwanda and Singapore’s bilateral climate agreement offers a promising model of equitable, nature-based cooperation, it must be matched and multiplied by bold, science-aligned action from the world’s largest emitters. Only then can the global community realize the full promise of the Paris Agreement and avoid the catastrophic consequences of unchecked warming.

Meanwhile, “Years of international climate action have put the world on the right path. Projected global warming is much lower than it was a decade ago. But the pace is still far too slow” says the CNN in the mentioned story, before quoting Niklas Höhne— a climate scientist at the non-profit the NewClimate Institute who works on the Climate Action Tracker— as pointing out “It[the pace] ‘s not a little bit off. It’s really, totally off.”

A growing chorus of scientists, according to the CNN, has warned the 1.5 target may now be dead, but they highlight that this doesn’t mean there’s less urgency. “Every fraction of a degree makes a very big difference in impacts on the ground,” says Taryn Fransen, director of science, research, and data for the WRI’s Global Climate Program.

“The difference between 1.5 and 2 degrees means hundreds of millions more lives will be at risk from extreme weather events. And for some ecosystems, it’s a death sentence,” explains the CNN. Fransen points out “The trouble is that we’ve run out of lead time and now we’re having to turn the ship very, very quickly.”

The International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in its 24 October 2024 story titled “2024 UNEP Emissions Gap Report: Immediate action essential to keep 1.5°C target alive”, citing the  UN Environment Program (UNEP), alerts “Governments worldwide must urgently commit to reducing annual greenhouse gas emissions by 42% by 2030 and 57% by 2035 in their next Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) to avoid surpassing the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C global warming target.

The report emphasizes the necessity of bold, rapid action. The report highlights that unless global action accelerates, the world is on track for temperature increases between 2.6°C and 3.1°C by the end of the century. Without enhanced ambition and immediate implementation, the report projects that even with full implementation of current NDCs, global warming will reach 2.6°C. Under current policies, temperatures could rise as high as 3.1°C by 2100.”

In the meantime, while a vast majority of scientists agree that human activities constitute the primary driver of climate change, it’s important to acknowledge that not everyone shares this view. Some individuals believe that climate change forms a natural phenomenon—which happens on its own. Additionally, there are claims that climate changes could be induced intentionally—deliberate manipulation of environmental systems or technologies that impact the climate such as geoengineering projects, a notion that would be maximally deplorable if proven to be true. Respecting differing perspectives can foster more open, inclusive dialogue, even as people are continuing to act on the overwhelming scientific consensus. Nevertheless, avery person agrees that climate change constitutes an unquestionable reality.