Search Climate Insights Directory

Between 2004 and 2012, Brazil's Amazon deforestation rates fell by nearly 80%, but the nature of the clearings shifted. While large-scale deforestation was curtailed by remote sensing-based monitoring, small-scale clearings (25 hectares or less) grew from 25% to over 50% of overall annual clearings because they are difficult for current systems to detect. Analysis of Mato Grosso and Pará shows that landholders adapted their behavior to avoid detection, with smallholders in Pará emerging as primary agents of clearing. The report recommends enhancing monitoring technology and tailoring policies to regional differences.

The research finds that while centralized conservation policies successfully reduced medium- and large-scale deforestation in both Mato Grosso and Pará, the impact on small-scale deforestation varied by state. In Mato Grosso, large landowners adapted by clearing forest in smaller patches to elude the DETER monitoring system, which cannot detect clearings under 25 hectares. In Pará, smallholders were more persistent in deforesting because their clearings were predominantly smaller than 25 hectares and thus remained invisible to law enforcement. The authors argue that the apparent similarity in deforestation scale across states masks critical differences in the agents involved, necessitating tailored regional policies.

The research finds that an increase in relative soy to beef prices encourages the conversion of pasture to cropland, which in turn reduces local deforestation. This effect is attributed to the higher input intensity of crop cultivation compared to cattle ranching, which increases local input prices and displaces low-productivity cattle ranchers. The author estimates that this land conversion saved 5,300 square kilometers of forest, representing nearly 15% of the region's total deforestation during the study period.

This research paper by the Climate Policy Initiative describes three analytical tools designed to help low and middle-income countries and their partners redirect land-use finance toward climate mitigation and adaptation. The tools aim to address the gap between the hundreds of billions spent on business-as-usual land use and the relatively small amount of finance currently dedicated to green activities.

The report argues that while hundreds of billions are spent annually on land use, most are 'business-as-usual' (BAU) investments that may increase climate vulnerability. To shift this, the authors propose three tools: the Landscape of Land Use Finance to map current flows and gaps; the Financial Viability-Gap Analysis to identify where public incentives can make green projects financially feasible; and the Public Finance Mapping tool to ensure policy coherence and identify BAU subsidies. These tools aim to help low and middle-income countries scale up private investment in green agriculture, forestry, and land management.

The report argues that land use generates nearly a quarter of global greenhouse gas emissions and is highly vulnerable to climate change, yet most investment in the sector remains 'business as usual' (BAU). To address this, the authors propose three tools: a Land Use Sector Financing Landscape to map current financial flows and actors; a Financial Viability Gap analysis to identify the costs and risks preventing green investments; and a Public Financing Mapping analysis to ensure coherence among public financial instruments and incentives. These tools aim to help governments shift funding from BAU activities to green alternatives without compromising economic development.

The report argues that while land use generates about a quarter of global greenhouse gas emissions and is highly vulnerable to climate change, current investments are predominantly 'business-as-usual'. It introduces three tools—a land-use finance landscape, a financial viability gap analysis, and a public finance mapping tool—to help governments identify funding gaps, assess the financial viability of green projects, and ensure policy coherence to unlock private and public investment in sustainable land management.

The report addresses the challenge of redirecting hundreds of billions of dollars spent annually on high-emission 'business-as-usual' (BAU) land-use activities toward sustainable 'green' alternatives. It argues that limited understanding of current financial flows inhibits effective public intervention. To solve this, the authors propose three tools: Land Use Finance Mapping to visualize current spending and identify gaps; Financial Viability Gap Analysis to determine why sustainable activities are not financially attractive and how public incentives can bridge that gap; and Public Incentive Mapping to ensure coherence across government policies and align them with sustainable production goals.

The report addresses the challenge of transitioning to low-carbon, productive land use by identifying gaps in the understanding of current financial flows. It argues that while hundreds of billions are invested in agriculture and forestry, most support non-sustainable practices. To remedy this, the authors introduce three tools: a financial flow mapping tool to visualize investments and actors, a financial viability analysis tool to identify and bridge the gap between 'green' and business-as-usual costs, and a public incentive mapping tool to ensure policy coherence and maximize private investment.

The report argues that while land use generates approximately a quarter of global greenhouse gas emissions and is highly vulnerable to climate change, current financial flows are predominantly 'business-as-usual' (BAU). To address this, the authors introduce three tools: the Landscape of Land Use Finance, the Financial Viability Gap Analysis tool, and the Public Finance Mapping tool. These tools are designed to help low and middle-income countries identify financial blockages, assess the viability of green projects, and ensure policy coherence to scale up private sector investment in climate-resilient agriculture and forestry.

The paper argues that the simultaneous impacts of multiple drivers—climate, population, land use, and water use—on biodiversity and ecosystem services are largely unknown and rarely analysed together. Using the Norrström drainage basin in Sweden as a case study, the authors highlight that despite significant historical changes since the 19th century, including a 1.6°C temperature increase and rapid urbanization, there is insufficient data on the resulting impacts on biodiversity. The authors advocate for interdisciplinary research and the use of matching-scale data to support adaptive governance.

The We Mean Business Coalition advocates for a global climate agreement that limits temperature rises to below 2C, emphasizing the need for a net-zero emissions goal, scalable climate finance, and increased short-term ambition through the UNFCCC Workstream 2. The coalition argues that bold climate action represents a historic economic opportunity, noting that some low-carbon investments have achieved an internal rate of return (IRR) of 27%.

The report finds that Brazil's current public price risk mitigation policies are inefficient, providing only R$ 4 billion in gains despite a R$ 5.4 billion federal budget in 2013. Simulation results indicate that farmers would be willing to pay approximately R$ 50 billion to mitigate price risks for soy, sugarcane, corn, and coffee, suggesting a significant unmet market demand. The authors recommend that the Brazilian government move away from direct production purchases and instead subsidize private market instruments, such as put options, to improve agricultural productivity and economic growth.

The report finds that Brazil's current agricultural price risk policies are inefficient and cost-ineffective, providing only BRL 4 billion in gains despite a BRL 5.4 billion budget in 2013. It suggests that farmers would be willing to pay BRL 50 billion to avoid price risk for soybean, sugarcane, corn, and coffee. The authors recommend that the Brazilian government move away from direct output buyouts and instead incentivize market-based tools like sell options, similar to programs in the United States, the European Union, and the state of São Paulo.

The paper examines the conflict between bioenergy production and the global need for food, feed, and carbon sequestration. It argues that dedicated land use for bioenergy—including crop-based biofuels and cellulosic energy crops—exacerbates a projected 70 percent crop calorie gap by 2050. The authors contend that bioenergy is an inefficient use of solar radiation compared to solar photovoltaics (PV), which can produce over 100 times more energy per hectare. Furthermore, the document identifies a systemic 'double counting' error in greenhouse gas accounting that erroneously treats biomass as carbon-free. It recommends phasing out subsidies and mandates for land-dedicated bioenergy while prioritizing 'additional' biomass sources such as municipal waste and specific residues.

The briefing presents Transformative Transparency, a data-driven platform developed by the Stockholm Environment Institute and the Global Canopy Programme. It aims to increase transparency in the trade of agricultural commodities—specifically those linked to deforestation—by linking production landscapes to consumer countries using customs data, bills of lading, and subnational production data. The platform is designed to help investors, retailers, governments, and consumers identify risk factors and monitor sustainability commitments, such as 'zero deforestation' pledges, by providing a more comprehensive and cost-efficient alternative to footprint analyses and bespoke traceability systems.

The report assesses 50 environmental impact assessment frameworks, finding that few focus exclusively on livestock. It identifies nine key impact dimensions—including GHG emissions, water use, and biodiversity—and notes a significant lack of ex-ante analysis and explicit rationale for indicator selection. The review highlights that while many frameworks target policymakers, they often rely on short-term data and lack clear methodologies for up-scaling results across different spatial and temporal scales.

The document emphasizes that robust accounting rules and quality criteria are essential for the integrity of future carbon markets to avoid double counting and ensure net atmospheric benefits. It advocates for consistency across different mechanisms, including those for international aviation (ICAO), and warns against including land-use activities like REDD-plus in carbon markets due to risks of leakage and impermanence.

The document opposes using carbon markets to promote climate-smart agriculture, citing the risk of impermanence in soil and forest carbon sequestration compared to permanent fossil fuel emissions. It highlights that land use accounts for 24% of global emissions and suggests that finance for these activities should be mobilized through non-market mechanisms like Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs) to avoid compromising food security and adaptation.

The Climate Policy Initiative (CPI) is implementing a Production-Protection strategy in Indonesia, specifically in Central Kalimantan, to reconcile economic growth with environmental conservation. This approach focuses on increasing oil palm productivity through modern agricultural systems and a jurisdictional model to be developed by the end of 2015. The strategy involves partnerships with the Central Kalimantan Government, the Palangkaraya Institute for Land and Agricultural Research (PILAR), and the national Fiscal Policy Agency of the Ministry of Finance to align fiscal mechanisms with a green economy transition.