Search Climate Insights Directory

The report examines Nigeria's food systems, highlighting a projected increase in chronic hunger and extreme poverty by 2030. It identifies livestock as the primary source of agricultural GHG emissions and notes significant climate vulnerabilities, particularly for rice yields. The analysis reveals a stark dietary divide between income groups, with wealthier households consuming more animal-based proteins. While national dietary guidelines and climate policies exist, the report finds a substantial gap in Official Development Assistance (ODA) required to meet SDG 2 targets.

The report assesses Ethiopia's progress toward healthy and sustainable food systems, highlighting a projected decrease in extreme poverty and undernourishment by 2030 alongside a significant increase in livestock-driven GHG emissions. It examines the country's vulnerability to drought, the role of climate-smart agriculture in improving dietary diversity, and the influence of Official Development Assistance (ODA), with the United States as the primary donor. The document also details the development of national dietary guidelines and analyzes household consumption patterns, noting that wealthier households have higher dietary diversity and meat consumption.

The document serves as a toolkit for the press to evaluate the environmental proposals of Colombian presidential candidates. It identifies critical areas of concern—including deforestation, climate change, energy transition, and marine conservation—and provides data-driven contexts and specific lines of inquiry to ensure candidates are held accountable to national and international commitments.

The World Resources Institute (WRI) issued a statement condemning Russia's invasion of Ukraine, highlighting the resulting humanitarian crisis and the risk that the conflict will disrupt global energy and food systems. WRI President & CEO Ani Dasgupta expressed concern that the war could divert the political will and resources necessary to address global challenges, specifically climate change, poverty, and hunger.

The policy brief examines the role of science-policy interfaces (SPIs) in identifying environmental risks and informing global policy since the 1972 Stockholm Conference. It analyzes successful models like the IPCC and IPBES, while evaluating current proposals for new SPIs focused on chemicals and waste and food systems. The author highlights the challenges of power imbalances and the need for credibility, inclusivity, and transparency in SPI design.

The document argues that while nearly 25% of global deaths are linked to economic decisions affecting the environment, the health community remains largely invisible in global environmental negotiations. It identifies a 'triple planetary crisis' (biodiversity loss, climate change, and pollution) and a 'Triple Billion' health burden, asserting that the merger of environmental and health governance is necessary to prevent environmental policies from negatively impacting health or widening inequities. The guide provides specific entry points for health stakeholders within Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs), such as the CBD and UNFCCC, and recommends shifting toward multi-sectoral health governance where health data informs national environmental plans and health experts participate in intersessional decision-making bodies.

The document argues that while nearly 25% of global deaths are linked to economic decisions affecting the environment, health stakeholders remain largely invisible in global environmental negotiations. It provides a technical roadmap for health professionals to engage with key multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs), emphasizing that environmental governance is effectively health governance. The guide details specific opportunities within the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the UNFCCC, chemicals conventions, and the Committee on World Food Security (CFS), advocating for a multi-sectoral health governance model that incorporates Planetary Health and One Health frameworks.

The document argues that while nearly 25% of global deaths are linked to economic decisions affecting the environment, the health community remains largely invisible in global environmental policy negotiations. It analyzes four primary domains—biodiversity, climate change, pollution, and food systems—and examines how health expertise can be integrated into the legal frameworks and decision-making processes of the CBD, UNFCCC, CITES, and other international bodies. The guide emphasizes the need for a 'multisectoral governance of health' and the adoption of holistic frameworks like Planetary Health and One Health to address the 'triple planetary crisis' of biodiversity loss, climate change, and pollution.

The document argues that global environmental governance is inherently health governance, as nearly 25% of global deaths are linked to economic decisions affecting the environment. It identifies a critical gap where health stakeholders are often invisible in Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs) negotiations. The guide proposes strategic entry points for health experts to influence policy language and implementation across four key domains: biodiversity (CDB), climate change (UNFCCC), pollution (BRS and Minamata), and food systems (CSA). It emphasizes that national implementation of these global treaties is the primary mechanism for achieving health outcomes and recommends the adoption of a common vocabulary including 'planetary health' and 'One Health'.

The COP27 Resilience Hub served as a physical and virtual space to accelerate ambition and investment in climate resilience, representing over 1,500 non-state actors. The report identifies five cross-cutting messages, emphasizing that scaling adaptation is a prerequisite for containing Loss and Damage and that locally-led adaptation (LLA) requires radical collaboration. The document details thematic analysis across nine areas—including finance, food, water, and health—and highlights the role of Regional Resilience Hubs in amplifying under-represented voices from Africa, South Asia, Asia Pacific, and Latin America and the Caribbean.

The fact sheet outlines strategic recommendations to strengthen the nexus between health and the environment. It advocates for increased health sector participation in international negotiations (such as the UNFCCC and CBD), the adoption of health-centric metrics in national planning (like NDCs and NAPs), and the reform of chemicals governance to better protect diverse consumer groups. The document emphasizes the need for cross-sectoral collaboration between health and environmental ministries to address climate resilience, biodiversity loss, and pollution.

The document introduces a 'systems pathway' consisting of three phases: Engaging, Exploring, and Learning. It argues that complex problems cannot be solved with linear thinking and instead requires a collaborative, iterative approach. The guide details a process for understanding system dynamics, identifying high-leverage points for intervention, and developing adaptive theories of change and action. It includes a toolkit of 11 practical methods, such as the Iceberg Model and Scenario Planning, to help practitioners move from a state of 'chaos and confusion' toward systemic renewal.

The Changing Markets Foundation and partner organisations wrote to Arla Foods to highlight a 'complete lack of action' from major meat and dairy companies regarding methane emissions. Based on a report titled 'Blindspot', the authors state that none of the 20 companies analysed report methane emissions separately or have concrete targets to reduce them. Arla specifically scored 14.8 out of 100 in the ranking, with the authors noting a lack of specific commitments and only 'minor investment' in technical methane abatement and protein alternatives. The letter recommends that Arla set science-based targets aligned with 1.5°C, report CO2 and methane separately, and shift toward sustainable food systems including reduced meat and dairy production.

The Changing Markets Foundation and partner organisations wrote to Cargill on 20 December 2021, citing a report that found a "complete lack of action" among the 20 largest meat and dairy companies regarding methane emissions. The letter highlights that Cargill scored 15.2 out of 100 in the foundation's ranking and lacks specific methane reduction targets or separate reporting for methane emissions. The authors recommend that Cargill set science-based targets aligned with 1.5C, establish absolute methane reduction plans, invest in alternative proteins, and support policies promoting sustainable diets. The letter also requests specific data on investments in methane abatement and meat alternatives over the last five years.

The Changing Markets Foundation and partner organisations critique Danish Crown for its lack of concrete methane reduction targets and reporting, scoring the company 9.6 out of 100 in a ranking of 20 meat and dairy companies. The letter demands disclosure of investments in methane abatement and alternative proteins and recommends the adoption of science-based targets aligned with a 1.5°C limit, including absolute emission reductions and a shift toward sustainable food systems.

The Changing Markets Foundation and partner organisations write to JBS Foods to demand concrete action and transparency regarding methane emissions. Citing their 'Blindspot' report, the authors state that none of the 20 largest meat and dairy companies analysed report methane emissions separately or have meaningful targets to reduce them. JBS specifically scored 9.6 out of 100 in the ranking. The letter recommends that JBS set science-based targets aligned with 1.5°C, report absolute emissions rather than intensity, and invest in alternative proteins. It also requests specific data on investments in methane abatement and meat alternatives over the last five years.

The Changing Markets Foundation and partner organisations wrote to Lactalis Group on 20 December 2021, citing a report that found a "complete lack of action" among the 20 largest meat and dairy companies regarding methane emissions. The letter highlights that Lactalis scored 3.2 out of 100 in their ranking and lacks specific methane targets or separate emissions reporting. The authors recommend that Lactalis set science-based targets aligned with a 1.5°C limit, establish absolute methane reduction plans, invest in alternative proteins, and support policies promoting sustainable diets. The letter also requests specific data on investments in methane abatement and dairy alternatives over the last five years.

The Changing Markets Foundation and partner organisations write to Nestlé CEO Mark Schneider to demand transparency and action on methane emissions. Referencing their 'Blindspot' report, the authors state that none of the 20 largest meat and dairy companies analysed report methane emissions separately or have concrete targets to reduce them. Nestlé specifically scored 34.6 out of 100 in the ranking, indicating insufficient action. The letter requests specific data on investments in methane abatement and meat alternatives over the last five years and recommends that Nestlé set science-based targets for absolute emissions reductions, including scope 3, and support policies that drive a shift toward sustainable diets.

The document details an external review of WRI's 2018-2022 Strategic Plan, evaluating its seven global challenges and core functions. It employs a mixed-methods approach, including 'Outcome Harvesting' and a 'Traffic Light System' to measure progress. Preliminary findings indicate that the Forests program is the strongest performer (95.9% achievement), while the Governance Center is partially on track (44% achievement). The review also assesses WRI's growth, the impact of COVID-19, and the integration of gender and social equity across its global operations, including specific assessments of its offices in Africa, Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Mexico, and the United States.

The report maps 103 multistakeholder initiatives (MSIs) to demonstrate how transnational corporations and mega-philanthropies are displacing traditional state-led multilateralism. It identifies a pattern where the World Economic Forum (WEF) and large foundations like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation drive a 'stakeholder capitalism' agenda, often using the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as legitimacy. The analysis reveals a significant democratic deficit, with affected communities and Global South governments largely excluded from decision-making, while the UN system often acts as a strategic partner that legitimises these corporate-led mechanisms.