Search Climate Insights Directory

The paper assesses the evolution of sustainable development indicators (SDIs), noting a shift from long 'menus' of indicators toward core 'headline' sets and goal-oriented measures like the Millennium Development Goal Indicators (MDGIs). It critiques the United Nations Commission for Sustainable Development's (UNCSD) previous approach, which provided a broad list of indicators that lacked a common global framework and strong policy linkage. The authors argue that SDIs often remain 'environmental add-ons' rather than integrated policy tools due to institutional, methodological, and technical challenges, particularly data gaps. To address this, the document proposes a 'Synergy World' scenario, advocating for a gradual, evolutionary approach that aligns SDIs with the System of Integrated Environmental and Economic Accounting (SEEA) and the MDGIs, focusing on a small set of high-priority indicators linked to capital maintenance and specific policy targets.

The document critiques the world trade system and the World Trade Organisation (WTO), asserting that the principles of 'free trade' are fundamentally flawed and lead to increased global inequality, environmental degradation, and economic instability. It highlights how the system prioritises corporate interests over public health, food security, and sustainability, specifically critiquing the TRIPs Agreement and the Agreement on Agriculture. The briefing also details the influence of transnational corporations (TNCs) on trade policy and the failures of various WTO Ministerial Conferences, including Seattle, Doha, and Cancún.

The document argues that scientists and engineers possess significant power to reshape the world and should take responsibility for planning its sustainable use. It introduces 'sustainability appraisal' as a methodology to assess the environmental, social, and economic impacts of activities, moving beyond traditional cost-benefit analysis to seek 'win-win-win' solutions. The author emphasizes that a revolution in design is necessary, targeting reductions in energy use by 90% and resource use by 80%. Practical examples of sustainable re-engineering are provided, such as the Interface Company's reduction of chemicals in floor coverings and a sustainable hanging basket project in West Yorkshire.

The document suggests that communities conflicted over growth should distinguish between 'development' (improvements) and 'expansion' (increase in size). It argues that 'natural capitalism' provides a more comprehensive framework than 'smart growth' by focusing on resource productivity, biologically inspired economic models, and reinvestment in natural capital to create jobs and wealth without requiring physical expansion.

The paper examines the relationship between poverty and environmental degradation, arguing that while poverty does not necessarily cause degradation, the poor are disproportionately harmed by the loss of natural capital. It critiques the 'Environmental Kuznets Curve' and suggests that sustainable development requires tracking total wealth (natural, human, social, and physical capital) and strengthening institutional frameworks to manage common resources.

The document evaluates the state of global sustainability in 2001, highlighting a severe decline in ecosystem services and the rise of 'overshoot.' It identifies five key achievements since the Rio Summit—including the growth of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), civil society, and socially responsible investing—while warning of imminent climate instability, water shortages, and health crises. The authors advocate for 'Natural Capitalism,' a shift toward resource productivity and whole-systems governance, to replace the current industrial model that prioritizes labor productivity over natural capital.

The document argues that scientists and engineers bear a special responsibility for the consequences of their work due to their technical expertise and the dominant role of science in society. It provides a framework for navigating ethical careers, emphasizing the need for interdisciplinary education, personal reflection on values, and the establishment of support networks. The text details specific ethical risks in fields such as military technology, genetics, and space exploration, while highlighting the systemic pressure exerted by large corporations and the bias in government funding toward military projects. It advocates for a transition toward 'cleaner technologies' and a holistic approach to global politics and ethics to ensure scientific progress benefits humanity and the environment.

The report develops a pilot Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare (ISEW) for Sweden (1950-1992), finding that while per capita ISEW grew by over 90%, it lagged behind the more than 100% growth of per capita GNP. The index began to diverge from GNP around 1980, eventually declining by 1992. This divergence was less severe than in the US or UK, which the authors attribute to Sweden's progressive income distribution policies and its reliance on hydropower, which reduced the negative impacts of resource depletion and long-term environmental damage in the index calculations.

The report 'Regulated Destruction' by Friends of the Earth International critiques biodiversity offsetting as a mechanism that enables corporate pollution and habitat destruction. It argues that by framing nature as 'natural capital' or 'ecosystem services', these instruments allow companies to circumvent environmental protections through promises of restoration or protection elsewhere. The document examines national implementations in India, Uganda, Canada, Colombia, Brazil, and Costa Rica, and highlights the role of the World Bank's IFC Performance Standard 6 in driving these practices. It further contends that offsetting leads to 'double land grabs' and is used by the aviation and agro-industry to maintain a social license to operate despite ongoing deforestation and emissions.

The document critiques biodiversity offsetting as a mechanism of 'regulated destruction' that allows companies to destroy nature in one location by promising to protect or restore it elsewhere. It argues that this approach redefines nature as 'natural capital' or 'ecosystem services,' reducing complex ecological systems to tradable units. The report examines national implementations in India, Uganda, Canada, Colombia, Brazil, and Costa Rica, highlighting how these schemes often lead to 'double land grabbing,' the displacement of local communities, and the failure to provide long-term protection. It specifically criticizes the World Bank's IFC Performance Standard 6 for enabling the financing of destruction in 'critical habitats.' Furthermore, it analyzes how the aviation and agribusiness sectors use carbon offsets and REDD+ to greenwash their operations while continuing destructive activities.

The report critiques biodiversity offsetting as a mechanism of 'regulated destruction' that replaces strict environmental limits with flexible, market-based compensation. It contends that these systems—including biodiversity banks and carbon credits—often lead to a net increase in environmental damage, facilitate land grabbing from indigenous and local communities, and provide a veneer of sustainability for destructive industries such as mining, agribusiness, and aviation. Through case studies in India, Uganda, Canada, Colombia, Brazil, and Costa Rica, the document demonstrates how the promise of future restoration is used to justify immediate, irreversible ecological loss.

The fact sheet contrasts agroecology with 'nature based solutions' (NBS), asserting that NBS serves as a tool for agribusinesses and the finance sector to commodify nature and carbon. It claims that NBS focuses on narrow carbon sequestration metrics and specific practices like no-till farming to preserve corporate control, whereas agroecology seeks systemic change, food sovereignty, and land redistribution. The document warns that NBS integrates nature into corporate profit chains and provides carbon credits that allow fossil fuel corporations to pursue 'net zero' instead of real zero emissions.

The Green Economy Coalition (GEC) aims to accelerate the transition to a green, fair, and inclusive economy by acting as a bridge between business, civil society, and government. The GEC operates as a global movement of over 50 organisations, focusing on four core activities: building a narrative of change, stimulating policy across five thematic areas, mobilising national leadership through dialogue, and expanding its network of allies. Its thematic priorities include reforming financial systems, greening economic sectors, tackling inequality, valuing nature, and improving economic measurement and governance.

The Economics for Nature (E4N) partnership (2016-2022) worked to integrate natural capital into economic and business decision-making to protect and restore biodiversity. The report identifies that while the concept of natural capital helps make nature 'material' for policymakers and businesses, systemic change is hindered by a lack of a globally agreed definition of a successful economy and a divergence in capacity between the Global North and South. Key achievements include the development of the Green Economy Tracker, the '3-returns' investment framework, and the mainstreaming of natural capital into the EU Green Deal and African Development Bank programmes. The report concludes that future progress requires putting people and Indigenous Peoples at the heart of economic design, institutionalising natural capital accounting, pursuing systemic economic reform, and scaling nature-based solutions.

The Green Economy Coalition (GEC) aims to mainstream the green economy concept by 2020, focusing on environmental limits, equity, and inclusion. Its strategy centers on four core activities: global advocacy to build a 'compelling story' of transition, collaborative action across five policy building blocks (measurement, finance, sectors, fairness, and nature), mobilizing national action through regional hubs, and expanding its network to 100 collaborating organizations. The GEC seeks to influence global institutions and national governments to adopt new economic performance measures, reform the finance sector, and integrate social fairness into green planning.

The document evaluates how fiscal, budgetary, monetary, and trade policies in Brazil during the COVID-19 pandemic integrated or ignored natural capital in the Legal Amazon. It finds that the vast majority of economic stimulus measures had a negative impact on natural capital, with 87.2% categorized as 'high negative'. While some positive measures exist in bioeconomy and low-carbon agriculture, the report argues that nature was not central to economic decision-making and recommends a shift toward a 'green recovery' that values standing forests.

The report finds that while Uganda's medium-term planning (NDPIII) is responsive to natural capital, actual budgetary allocations have declined, with only 28% of the 2021/22 recovery budget supporting natural capital management compared to 40% in 2020/21. It highlights significant degradation of forests and wetlands and warns that industrialization goals may further threaten biodiversity without dedicated monitoring and offset plans.

The policy brief advocates for a 'capitals approach' to economic planning, moving beyond GDP to account for natural, human, social, and produced capital. It highlights the role of natural capital in supporting the Sustainable Development Goals and limiting global temperature rises to below 1.5 degrees. The document identifies several gaps in current strategies, recommending the creation of coordinated Green Economy action plans, stronger green industrial policies, and the establishment of Natural Capital Committees reporting to Finance Ministries. It also emphasizes the importance of the Natural Capital Protocol for businesses to measure their dependencies on nature and calls for new valuation strategies for freshwater resources to combat increasing water stress.

The briefing highlights the interconnectedness of economic and environmental systems exposed by COVID-19, urging governments to use recovery packages to shift toward a 'nature-positive' economy. While tools for valuing nature exist, the author notes that investment remains marginal due to a lack of political will and fiscal strain. The document proposes seven strategies for transformative change, including green fiscal reforms, full-cost accounting of natural capital, and the use of nature bonds to unlock private capital.

The Economics for Nature (E4N) partnership developed tools, networks, and best practices to embed the value of natural capital into government, business, and financial decision-making. Key achievements include the Green Economy Tracker, the '3-returns' investment framework, and the mainstreaming of natural capital into the EU Green Deal and African Development Bank programmes. The document identifies a divergence between OECD countries and debt-stressed nations in adopting these approaches and outlines four 'frontiers' for future progress: centering people and Indigenous knowledge, standardizing valuation frameworks, implementing systemic economic reform, and scaling nature-based solutions.